Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Superannuation Act, 1972.
2. Iron and Steel Act, 1972.
3. New Zealand and Australian Land Company Limited Order Confirmation Act, 1972.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

British Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether, in view of the circumstances in which the contents of a letter from the hon. Member for Fife, West to Lord Hill, the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, were communicated to a national newspaper without the knowledge or consent of the hon. Member, he will dismiss Lord Hill.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very serious principle is involved? When an hon. Member writes to a public corporation and the information is disclosed to a newspaper within 24 hours of his writing, without

the Member's knowledge or consent, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is to be deplored and that the matter should be further investigated with a view to disciplinary action being taken against the offender?

Mr. Chataway: I am told by the B.B.C. that it is investigating to try to discover how the information arrived at the newspaper. But certainly I do not consider it a matter which would justify the dismissal of the chairman of the corporation.

Sir R. Cary: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, while there may be many reasons for dismissing Lord Hill, the request contained in this Question is not one of them?

Mr. Chataway: I agree with that last comment.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether, in view of the provisions of the Licence and Agreement, his permission in writing was sought by the British Broadcasting Corporation before the transmission of announcements relating to the Time-Life part-work on the British Empire.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. My permission was not sought.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that in view of the B.B.C. advertising a commercial undertaking, upon which none of its staff had worked and for which it received 1 per cent. of the profits, in return for financial help in the sale and marketing of B.B.C. programmes, one of which incidentally bore the title of this part-work, there is a need to look again at the definition of sponsorship in Section 12 of the Licence and Agreement and particularly at what the phrase
money or any other valuable consideration" nowadays can mean?

Mr. Chataway: I am satisfied that the B.B.C. is right to say that it did not, in the words of Section 12, receive any money or valuable consideration in


respect of the sending of these announcements. I think that there is a feeling, on the part of a number of hon. Members, that there are aspects of the Time-Life arrangement about which the B.B.C. ought to think further.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend look into one aspect which seems rather odd, namely, that the "British Empire" should have been arranged with an American publishing firm, the matter not having being discussed with a British publishing firm before the decision was made?

Mr. Chataway: The situation undoubtedly is that the B.B.C. retains total editorial control over the programmes, though I am sure the corporation will take note of my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Madel: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what discussions he has held with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the subject of advertising being used as a form of revenue for the corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir. Nor has the B.B.C. put this suggestion to me.

Mr. Madel: As the B.B.C.'s range of activities is so wide and as broadcasting costs continue to rise, would it not be better for the corporation to raise some revenue from advertising rather than make another request for an increase in the licence fee?

Mr. Chataway: There is no question of a request for an increase in the licence fee at this time. The view that the corporation has always taken about advertising is that if it once allowed it into any of its programmes it would, in successive years, be forced to extend advertising throughout its service. On that basis, it has always resisted the idea of introducing advertising anywhere.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to begin consultations about a successor to the present Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to my reply on 9th February to my hon.

Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).—[Vol. 830, c. 1319.]

Mr. Morris: Would the Minister indicate whom he will be consulting before the appointment is finalised? Also, would he bear in mind the independence, impartiality and, indeed, importance which reasonable people on all sides of the House attach to this appointment? What thought has the Minister given to taking the nation into his confidence and publishing a list of the aspirants for the post prior to the appointment being made?

Mr. Chataway: I am not sure that that is a very practical proposal, because I doubt whether a very satisfactory list of aspirants could be drawn up in public for such a post. We would do better to rely on more traditional means of filling the post.

Mr. Evelyn King: Would my right hon. Friend accept that, after giving reasonable freedom to producers, matters of programme content must rest securely in the hands of the new chairman and his colleagues and not in the hands of free communications groups within the B.B.C. or any other self-appointed doctrinaires? In this matter may we be sure that the chairman will have the fullest support of the Minister and Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Chataway: Although the terms in which my hon. Friend described the situation might be regarded by some as slightly provocative, I think he has outlined the position absolutely correctly. Responsibility for programme content rests solely with the chairman and governors of the B.B.C.

Post Office (Restructuring)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is now in a position to make a statement to the House as a result of his discussions with the Post Office Board arising from the rejection of the board's restructuring proposals by the Post Office Users' National Council.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proposals he has now received from the Post Office Corporation for restructuring the postal services; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 27th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).—[Vol. 829, c. 520.]

Mr. Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a matter of great concern, especially to those who work in the Post Office and not least to the consumers who use the Post Office? Surely the time has come when there should be some urgency about this matter, and should not the House know at an early date the outcome of the discussions?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government are considering the position of all the nationalised industries following the C.B.I. initiative. A statement will be made about the Post Office, like all the other nationalised industries, in due course.

Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the original restructuring proposals of the Post Office Corporation envisaged the redundancy of 25,000 of the Post Office staff by 1978? In view of the fact that the Post Office Users' National Council has now rejected some of the major recommendations in the original restructuring report, what is now the position regarding the redundancy of Post Office staff?

Mr. Chataway: The proposals were never based upon the belief that redundancies would be necessary. It was a matter of recruitment and natural wastage over that period. The Post Office has said that it will not now implement these major service cuts in view of the recommendations of the Post Office Users' National Council. I think that the other changes will not affect the service markedly.

Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is now considerable urgency about this matter? It is not simply a question of what happens when the C.B.I. initiative comes to an end and what action the Government take generally. If we are to accept what the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation has said, there will be serious financial problems to be considered. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter which should be

considered soon? Will he make an early statement to the House?

Mr. Chataway: In part, those serious financial problems arise from the very serious situation of the Post Office in the middle of 1970. In part they arise from the terms of the C.B.I. initiative. It is in that context that the Post Office, together with the other nationalised industries, is being considered by the Government.

Telephone Wires (Undergrounding)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to put telephone wires underground in conservation areas and other built-up areas of high quality.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir; but the Post Office consults conservation bodies and obtains consents from local authorities and others as prescribed in the Telegraph Acts.

Mr. Worsley: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reluctance to give a general direction. Does he appreciate, however, that the Post Office has a much less good record than the electricity boards in this respect? Will he make representations to the Post Office that it should be at least as good as the electricity boards in putting these cables underground?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and will be willing to consider any specific instance which he may wish to bring to its attention. I am informed that the Post Office consults conservation bodies and takes its responsibilities in this direction seriously.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that it is important for the Post Office to lay cables underground not only in areas of high quality but in council estates? Is he aware that the Post Office discriminates between areas when deciding whether to erect poles or to lay cables underground?

Mr. Chataway: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his question. The Post Office clearly accepts that it has a responsibility in, for example, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas which have a particular conservation value, and it is


anxious to bear in mind amenity considerations wherever they operate.

Local Radio

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when the City of Bradford will have a local radio service.

Mr. Chataway: The frequency plan which I am considering with the B.B.C. and I.T.A. is not yet completed. It is too early to say when Bradford will be served.

Mr. Lyons: Will the Minister tell us whether he has decided on the kind of radio station that Bradford is to get? Will it be B.B.C. or commercial? If commercial, is this the reason for the delay in the announcement? Is there not enough consumer exhortation being directed at our citizens without having further commercial stations, particularly in Yorkshire?

Mr. Chataway: I do not take that view. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Opposition have now made it clear in Committee that they equally do not favour a B.B.C. monopoly in sound radio. It is possible that the B.B.C.'s Leeds station could in due course reach Bradford. It is also possible that Bradford will have its own I.B.A. station. However, the determination of this matter will rest upon the completion of the overall frequency plan.

Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friend inform me whether Southampton is to be on the list to obtain one of these few commercial radio stations?

Mr. Chataway: I certainly hope so; but we cannot make an announcement about the places which will be served by commercial radio until the frequency plan, which will determine the frequencies to be used by the I.B.A. and by the B.B.C. has been completed.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the Minister tell us what reasons were adduced by Opposition spokesmen in Committee against the monopoly of the B.B.C. in sound radio? It is news to us.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to address that question to his hon. Friends. I suspect that they must have been persuaded by

the arguments which we put forward. For the time being there appears to be no inclination on the part of the Opposition either to wind up commercial television or to oppose in principle commercial radio.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, irrespective of frequency, large tracts of country are totally muted in this context? South Worcestershire has no local radio cover whatever, either commercial or B.B.C. Cannot we have some priority before these well-served areas such as Bradford get on to the list?

Mr. Chataway: I am deeply disturbed at the idea of South Worcestershire being muted. I will endeavour to do what I can in the matter.

Giro

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the estimated loss, revised and cumulative to the latest convenient date, of the Post Office Giro; whether he will publish the salient recommendations in the Cooper Brothers report on the finances of the undertaking; whether the reconstruction of Giro is yet complete; and what financial objectives have been agreed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has yet received proposals from the Post Office for Giro tariff increases in conformity with the recommendations of the Cooper Brothers report.

Mr. Chataway: I have nothing as yet to add to the answers I gave on 19th January and on 9th February to my hon. Friends the Members for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).—[Vol. 829, c. 433–5; Vol. 830, c. 1312–4]

Sir G. Nabarro: As I have estimated the cumulative loss up to next March at approximately £20 million, which is a sensible estimate, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that this is the lamest of all lame ducks among the nationalised industries? As public capital is entailed, is not the House of Commons entitled to know what the accountants recommend in their report?

Mr. Chataway: Cooper Brothers' report, following a large number of past precedents, was commissioned on the basis that it should be frank about things and people. It could have been commissioned on some other basis which would have been suitable for publication, but it would have been less use for the purpose in hand. I appreciate that my hon. Friend is anxious to see the new tariff structure introduced as soon as possible in order that the Giro may move into profit, and I assure him that no time will be wasted on that.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware of the great efforts being made by 3,500 of my constituents to make Giro a great success? Will he remind his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who knows my constituency, that he should know that any industry or commercial undertaking which has the good sense to come to Bootle is bound to fructify and blossom eventually?

Mr. Chataway: It is right that there should be concern about Giro and whether it could be profitable. However, nobody was anxious, for the sake of it, to deprive the Post Office, alone among European post offices, of the opportunity of running a transmission service which could be more up-to-date than postal and money orders. We are now determined to carry through the restructuring recommended by Cooper Brothers to put Giro on a viable foundation.

Broadcasting Policy (Advisory Panels)

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now set up independent advisory panels to enable the public to give advice prior to policy decisions of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The broadcasting authorities must judge how best to acquaint themselves with the views of the public and what advice to seek, since they have the responsibility for providing the service.

Mr. Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people who

want neither Government intervention or interference with the broadcasting authorities nor the dictatorial attitude which is taken by broadcasting authorities about programme content and policy? Is it not sensible to follow the Danish system, which means that the consumer and the community have a say in the policy of the broadcasting authorities?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend knows that these matters have been debated in both Houses and that different views have been expressed. The Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A. are there to represent the public and the consumer. My doubt about my hon. Friend's proposal is whether there would be any gain from dividing responsibility for programme content between two publicly appointed authorities.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is never any difficulty in discovering what public opinion is, but that it is the view of the B.B.C. that it should be constantly and deliberately ignored?

Mr. Chataway: I do not accept that that would be regarded as a proper interpretation of their functions by the governors of the corporation.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects subscriber trunk dialling exchanges to be in use in every town with a population of more than 25,000.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office tells me that S.T.D. facilities have now been provided for 92 per cent. of telephone customers and the remainder should have them by the end of 1974.

Mr. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend realise that my Question refers to populations in excess of 25,000 and that Brentwood, in my constituency, with a population of more than 50,000, not only does not have subscriber trunk dialling but is constantly told that it will be later and later before it gets it? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the inhabitants are getting tired of the Post Office blaming contractors and the contractors blaming the Post Office, and is


there not an opportunity for the Minister to knock a few heads together?

Mr. Chataway: There has been difficulty in adapting the crossbar exchange system to local needs and there has in consequence been considerable delay. I am told that S.T.D. will be provided for Brentwood in late 1973.

Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that for the next generation of telephone equipment the policy and investment decisions which will have to be made by the Post Office, for example in relation to T.X.E.4, are matters which we on this side of the House would wish to be discussed publicly before a decision is taken? The amount of capital investment involved will be extremely large and it would be wrong if that decision were taken otherwise than in as public a way as possible.

Mr. Chataway: I entirely accept that. As I have made clear in previous exchanges, the Post Office does not yet consider that it is in a position to decide which exchange system, or which combination of exchange systems, it requires for the next period. Before that happens I should need to come to the House for new borrowing powers and this would give an occasion for debating the matter.

Stamps

Mr. James Hill: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to ensure that combinations of stamps are treated in the same way by the sorting machines as single stamps of the same total value.

Mr. Chataway: I understand from the Post Office that a letter with any combination of stamps equal to the first-class rate is treated as first class.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter in The Times pointed out that an envelope bearing a 2½p and a ½p stamp would go by second-class mail? I have checked this with the Post Office in the House of Commons and I have been told categorically that there is

a metallic substance in the 3p stamp which the processing machine can detect, whereas there is no such metallic substance in stamps of lower denominations.

Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that that is not correct. I believe there was a reply from the Post Office to that letter in The Times giving the assurance that that combination of stamps would be detected by the machine as first-class mail and that the mail would be treated as such.

Telephone Kiosks

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to increase the number of telephone kiosks installed on council house estates.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The siting of kiosks is a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. O'Halloran: Is the Minister aware of the ever-growing demand on council estates, where large communities live together, for better telephone facilities, especially in London where there is so much vandalism?

Mr. Chataway: I entirely accept that that is the position. The Post Office simply has to be satisfied that there would be a sufficient volume of business to justify the expense of a kiosk. I am sure that the Post Office would look sympathetically at any particular case which the hon. Gentleman cared to raise with it.

Mr. James White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow is building houses for aged persons who have to wait a long time for telephones to be installed? Many of these people are over 70 and are totally dependent upon the telephone. Will the Minister look into this and see that telephone cables are laid as the houses are finished?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Certainly the Post Office—and I shall have more to say on


this later—is anxious to move as fast as it can to meet rising demand.

Mr. Tilney: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed are not only more telephone kiosks on housing estates but more telephone kiosks all over the country which are in working order?

Mr. Chataway: Indeed, and I have on previous occasions described some of the measures which the Post Office is taking to combat vandalism.

Commercial Radio

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a further statement on the effect that the introduction of commercial radio in Great Britain will have on local and national newspapers.

Mr. Chataway: I know of no reason to change my previous assessment which I outlined during the Second Reading debate on the Sound Broadcasting Bill on 11th November last.—[Vol. 825, c. 1263.]

Mr. Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he make it crystal clear that any consortium bidding for a local radio commercial licence will have to show the capability and the aim of providing a good news service? Does he agree that local newspapers are in a particularly strong position to do this?

Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree. I believe that local newspapers will have a very valuable contribution to make to the new service.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the Minister regard the late lamented Clause 7 of the Sound Broadcasting Bill as a phoenix or a lame duck?

Mr. Chataway: It has been made clear during the somewhat lengthy course of the Sound Broadcasting Bill that in the absence of any worth while, substantial, positive ideas of their own, the Opposition are prepared to support any Amendments which come from the Government side.

Broadcasting Reception

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the radio and television transmitters, and the booster stations, indicating the power, whether in operation, and, if not, when expected to be in service, and which programmes and frequencies such as B.B.C.1, B.B.C.2, or independent such as Yorkshire TV, and whether very high frequency or ultra high frequency they transmit, which are now or will be transmitting to an area of 25 miles radius from Sheffield Town Hall.

Mr. Chataway: Yes. Sir.

Mr. Osborn: I welcome the progress which has been made during the last 18 months, but is my right hon. Friend aware that reception is still poor in the Peak District of Derbyshire and the valleys of Hallam? Will he outline what progress has been made and make known to the people living in the area the progress which we can expect in the months to come?

Mr. Chataway: Since there is a great deal of detailed information in the answer I am, as my hon. Friend suggested, circulating it in written form. As he knows, there are particular problems in getting the signal through in mountainous areas, but the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are anxious to make as fast progress as they can.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, within 18 miles of Sheffield, it is impossible to receive Radio Sheffield but it is possible to receive Radio Humberside which is 70 miles away? Is it not ludicrous that the transmitter in Sheffield should have only one-tenth the strength of the transmitter in Humberside? Does the Minister agree that in the recent national emergency transistor radios were worth their weight in gold and that radio stations throughout the country should all have the same transmission power?

Mr. Chataway: That would not make sense because local radio stations serve populations of differing sizes. I have said that I am prepared to look at the transmission strengths of B.B.C. local stations in the context of the frequency review which is now in progress.

Following is the information:

VHF RADIO TRANSMITTERS AND VHF AND UHF TELEVISION TRANSMITTERS WORKING OR PLANNED TO PROVIDE SERVICES RECEIVABLE WITHIN 25 MILES OF SHEFFIELD TOWN HALL


Station
Programme
Frequency/Channel
Power


Radio





Holme Moss
Radio 2
89·3 MHz
120 kW



Radio 3 (stereo)
91·5 MHz
120 kW



Radio 4
93·7 MHz
120 kW


Sheffield
Radio 2
89·9 MHz
0·06 kW



Radio 3 (stereo)
92·1 MHz
0·06 kW



Radio 4
94·3MHz
0·06 kW


BBC Radio Sheffield

88·6 MHz
0·03 kW


Rotherham relay

95·05 MHz
0·01 kW


BBC Radio Manchester

95·1 MHz
4kW


Television





VHF Television—BBC





Holme Moss
BBC1*
Channel 2
100 kW


Sheffield
BBC1*
Channel 1
0·05 kW


VHF Television—ITA





Emley Moor (Yorkshire)

Channel 10
200 kW


Sheffield relay (Yorkshire)

Channel 6
0·1 kW


UHF Television





Emley Moor
BBC2
Channel 51
1,000 kW



BBC1 duplicate
Channel 44
1,000 kW



ITV duplicate (Yorkshire Television)
Channel 47
1,000 kW


Chesterfield relay
BBC2
Channel 26
0·7 kW



ITV duplicate (Yorkshire Television)
Channel 23
0·7 kW



BBC1 duplicate (planned for 1972)




Saddleworth relay
BBC2
Channel 45
0·5 kW



BBC1
Channel 52
0·5 kW



ITV duplicate (Granada)
Channel 49
0·5 kW


Sheffield relay
BBC2
Channel 27
5kW



BBC1 duplicate
Channel 31
5kW



ITV duplicate (Yorkshire Television)
Channel 24
5kW


Planned UHF stations transmitting all services (BBC1, BBC2 and ITA)





Glossop relay
Granada
Planned for 1973
1 kW


Cop Hill relay
Yorkshire
2kW


Buxton relay
Granada
1 kW


Ladder Hill relay
Granada
1 kW

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is aware that the transmitters now being used by the Sheffield and Leeds British Broadcasting Corporation radio stations are not sufficiently powerful to reach many of the people in their catchment areas; and if he will take immediate steps to allow these two radio stations to use the Holme Moss transmitter.

Mr. Chataway: I have undertaken to consider the possibility of improving the coverage of B.B.C. Radio Leeds and B.B.C. Radio Sheffield as part of the total frequency plan for local radio.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time some-

thing was done apart from considering? Is he waiting until the Sound Broadcasting Bill completes its passage through the House of Commons? Does he not realise that Sheffield has 160 times less power and Leeds 30 times less power than the average power of the other four stations—Derby, Teesside, Humberside and Manchester? What is wrong with these two cities? Do they not qualify for a good radio transmitting station?

Mr. Chataway: These stations are broadcasting at the powers which the B.B.C. proposed when it sought the approval of my predecessor. What we have to do if we want to get the maximum coverage is to have a comprehensive frequency plan. If one gives permission in a higgledy-piggledy way to


people here, there and everywhere to broadcast at different powers, one will in the end get less coverage than if one does it in a rational way.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Does not Radio Sheffield have a new and more powerful transmitter installed? Why has it not been used?

Mr. Chataway: Because if a radio station broadcasts at a higher power, that may mean that less broadcasting can be received in another area. Frequency planning has therefore to be done on a comprehensive basis.

Mr. Swain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he appears to be shelving this problem? The extreme end of my constituency is only seven miles from Sheffield Town Hall, but 33,000 of my constituents who live within the Sheffield area cannot receive transmissions from the Sheffield transmitting centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously at this and make proposals to the B.B.C., if it is the B.B.C.'s responsibility, to correct the problem at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Chataway: The B.B.C. has its proposals and they are being discussed between my Ministry and the I.T.A. As soon as we can see a frequency plan which will enable broadcasting at higher powers at any of the B.B.C. stations, I shall certainly authorise it.

Mail (Redirection)

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to redirect mail free of charge addressed to council tenants moved out for modernisation of their houses to temporary accommodation for a period of up to three months.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The cost of redirection has to be met but I understand that local authorities have discretionary powers to bear the fees themselves in appropriate cases.

Mr. Woof: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this is an imposition on tenants who have no choice but to accept other accommodation while Blaydon Council is bringing pre-war council houses up to modern standards? Will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The Post Office is performing a service which costs money and has to be paid for. The local authority has power to help where it feels that help is justified.

Express Letters

Mr. Soref: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the average time taken for delivery of express inland letters.

Mr. Chataway: This is a matter for the Post Office, which tells me that it is not possible to give an average figure in respect of the special delivery service.

Mr. Soref: I am sure my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that, whereas formerly it was reasonable to anticipate the arrival of all inland post at its destination the following morning, since the creation of the two-tier system at an inflated price this has become increasingly infrequent. People who wish to make certain that their post arrives have no option but the express post. On two successive occasions, with mail posted in this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not make a statement; he must ask a question.

Mr. Soref: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mail posted from the House of Commons by express mail to Ormskirk, at a surcharge of 20p, has on two successive occasions in the past month still not arrived by first post next morning?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office would be very willing to investigate particular difficulties which may have arisen. Some 94 per cent. of first-class letters arrive the following day. The special delivery service is a supplement to that service and when no better service is provided by the special delivery service than would have been provided by the first class service, the full fee can be reclaimed.

Mr. Ewing: Would the Minister accept that one of the difficulties that the Post Office is undergoing is that head postmasters are not filling vacancies as they arise because they are awaiting the restructuring proposals referred to earlier and that consequently this makes it much more difficult to deliver all items on


time not only express, first-class or second-class material, but all items, including telegrams? The Post Office is having this difficulty because the vacancies are not being filled.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office has not suggested to me that any uncertainty over restructuring is hampering recruitment. The Post Office has made it clear that it accepts the verdict of the Post Office Users National Council in relation to the restructuring proposals.

National Emergency

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what effect the national emergency has had on the postal and telephone services.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office tells me that interruptions to electricity supplies have caused some delays to both postal and telephone services; but there have been no really serious disruptions of service.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we on this side of the House, at least, appreciate very much the efficiency with which the Post Office carried out its duties in the face of considerable difficulties? Would the Minister say whether there has been any costing of the exercise and whether it has cost the Post Office money and, if so, how it is proposed to recoup it?

Mr. Chataway: No significant increased costs have been incurred as a result of the dispute. I am sure that the Post Office will be grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Gorst: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to front page stories in today's Daily Mirror and Daily Express in which shocking increases in charges for telephones are forecast? Would he say whether those stories are true and, if so, whether they have any relationship to the national emergency?

Mr. Chataway: I hope, with permission, to answer a Written Question on this subject at the end of Question Time.

Postal Staff (Superannuation)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many

employees in the postal grades have opted for the new contributory superannuation scheme and how many have decided to continue in the non-contributory scheme.

Mr. Chataway: That is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister accept the representations that have already been made to him about the new contributory superannuation scheme mitigating against postal workers occupying council houses in certain parts of the country because their gross earnings have increased, although their take-home pay has not increased? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that this practice is stopped?

Mr. Chataway: The management of the pension scheme is a matter for the Post Office. There are some difficulties of the kind which the hon. Gentleman describes, of which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Services are aware.

Broadcasting (Inquiry)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to announce plans for an inquiry into broadcasting.

Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave on 19th January in answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).—[Vol. 829, c. 480–1.]

Mr. Whitehead: As so many things are now happening in the whole of broadcasting, over and above the Bill the tattered remnants of which the Minister must still have some hope of dragging through the Committee, is it not absolutely scandalous that these are still continuing without the faintest indication of when we are to have a full and informed inquiry into the whole of broadcasting?

Mr. Chataway: What would have been scandalous would have been if we had refused to take the action that we promised at the General Election of introducing competition into radio, of putting


right the finances of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and of taking action to derestrict hours when it would have been sensible to do so, all because a review was in preparation for 1976.

Mr. Richard: This matter has been raised time and again with the Minister since he assumed office. Why on earth has he not recognised that it is high time he appointed this inquiry? It is time that he appointed it, that it got on with its work, that it reported and that we considered its report. Is he aware that the longer he leaves it the worse the position gets?

Mr. Chataway: The matter is raised so often by the hon. and learned Gentleman because every time we take the initiative on something over which he and his hon. Friends cannot make up their minds, such as whether there should be competition in radio, they say that it should be put off and a committee of inquiry set up. That is not the course that we propose to take.

Postal Charges

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what estimate he has made of losses on postal services to 31st January, 1972, and to 31st March, 1972, for the full year ending on that date; and what financing proposals including increased charges he now has to finance such losses.

Mr. Chataway: As indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) on 2nd February. [Vol. 830, c. 121.] I am considering these matters with the Post Office. There are no proposals for further increases in postal tariffs this year.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend study the paradox that when the telephone service makes a large profit the tariffs go up, and when postal charges show a large loss the tariffs go up again? Can he discern any possibility that the consumer might be protected in this matter and might sometimes win?

Mr. Chataway: I shall be dealing with telephone charges in due course. My hon. Friend will be aware that neither the postal services nor the telephone service can be immune from rising costs. What one must see in both

respects is that the maximum is done to meet rising costs by increased productivity.

Mr. Joel Barnett: If the Post Office cannot be commercially viable while at the same time abiding by the Government's indirect request through the C.B.I. to restrict increases to 5 per cent., may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that he will, in effect, have to provide a subsidy to the Post Office?

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the results of the C.B.I. initiative affect a number of nationalised industries, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that they are being considered by the Government. Those considerations are in progress.

Broadcasting Council

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received so far during 1972 on the need for an independent broadcasting council.

Mr. Chataway: I have received from two hon. Members a resolution passed by a religious body in favour of setting up a broadcasting council, and three letters from members of the public also advocating a body of some kind to watch over the broadcasters.

Mr. Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is great public concern over this matter? Is it not extraordinarily ironic that an organisation like the B.B.C. should be so keen to put everybody else under independent scrutiny but so unwilling to submit to the same treatment itself?

Mr. Chataway: I take note of my hon. Friend's view. He will recall that when we debated this matter in the House some contrary views were expressed by hon. Members on both sides.

Post Office (Industrial Relations)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to publish the terms of the Industrial Relations Act to employees of the Post Office, the operation of agency agreements and the opportunities for employees to join a union other than the Union of Post Office Workers.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. A direction would not be appropriate. This is essentially a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of telephonists in the Sheffield area and elsewhere wish to leave the Union of Post Office Workers? What arrangements are being made in this context between the Post Office and the union and what advice can personnel managers give to telephonists?

Mr. Chataway: As my hon. Friend will realise, this is a management matter directly for the Post Office. These are, therefore, issues which should be addressed to the Post Office Board.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister discourage the Post Office Corporation from encouraging members of the Post Office staff joining secessionist trade unions or associations which are now emerging under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act? Is he aware that if this trend continues the Act will become known as the blacklegs' charter?

Mr. Chataway: I would certainly not accept any of that. [Interruption.] Nor would I wish to encourage the Post Office to act in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Railways (Social Grants)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Transport Act, 1968, in order to enable British Rail to apply for social grants on railway lines, the passenger service of which was withdrawn prior to the passing of the Transport Act, 1968, thus precluding British Rail from applying for social grants therefor.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): No, Sir.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing answer in view of the more enlightened attitude of the Government towards rail transport? Does he appreciate that in the battle between road and rail there were many, particularly urban, lines for which British Railways would have sought a grant had they been able to do so under

the 1968 Act and which they now feel might so qualify? Will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at any such requests he might receive from British Railways?

Mr. Walker: It is very much in the interest of British Railways to be given freedom on the closure of passenger services, as was given in 1966, to be able to dispose of their resources for the better use of British Railways.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries is considered in my area to be a most arrogant Minister who has refused to meet local government officials and councillors to discuss the social grant, although this issue is vitally important to the people of the area? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend about this query?

Mr. Walker: I am not aware of that. I have always found my right hon. Friend courteous and not in the slightest degree arrogant. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was my right hon. Friend who brought in proposals which provide the most generous capital to British Railways in their history.

National Tree Planting Year

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now designate 1973 as a national tree planting year, following discussions and correspondence between his Department and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth.

Mr. Peter Walker: My Department has had discussions with the local authority associations and has decided to proceed with a tree planting year in 1973. We will now have consultations with the horticultural trade and the voluntary amenity bodies.
I am establishing a committee under the chairmanship of a Minister from my Department to organise a nation-wide campaign in which I hope local authorities, industry, amenity organisations, youth organisations and schools will take part.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the wide welcome his answer will receive from a great section of the public? May I congratulate him on this decision? Does he agree that the whole


purpose of this plan is to invite the voluntary donation of trees from all sections of the community to be planted where they are most needed, in our towns and cities?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. The grant is already available to improvement areas and it has enabled many areas of urban cities to be improved in this way. I hope, however, that the campaign will mean a substantial extension of these activities.

Mr. William Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present legislation governing the preservation of trees?

Mr. Walker: A great deal more activity is now taking place under legislation in this sphere, but I am always willing to heed any suggestions that the hon. Gentleman might care to put to me on this topic.

A1 (London)

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further improvements are planned for the A1 road in inner London for which the Greater London Council has applied for grant aid, and what are the detailed plans.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): None, Sir.

Housing Estate Development

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if in his review of the law of compensation, he will consider legislation to safeguard the interests of purchasers of new houses against estate developers who erect unsightly buildings and neglect to fulfil undertakings given on the landscaping of estates.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. Local planning authorities already possess powers to control the erection of unsightly buildings and to require by planning conditions that landscaping be carried out.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Minister aware that the deft developer who is well aware of the planning regulations can, by prevarication, impede the work of county planning authorities, thereby causing ex-

cessive misery to many people, basically because of the inadequacy of the existing legislation? This difficulty is faced by both county planning authorities and new house purchasers.

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that local authorities have adequate powers in this matter, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details of any specific cases I will look at them sympathetically.

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in his review of the law of compensation, he will consider legislation to oblige developers of new housing estates financially to compensate residents who suffer inconvenience arising from continuing development.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. I am not aware of any need to introduce legislation along these lines.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Minister aware, following my supplementary question on Question No. 33, that new house purchasers are the victims of profiteering house developers who are completely insulated from any representations that new purchasers may undertake? Is he aware that it would concentrate the minds of those developers on their responsibilities to purchasers if the law said that they must compensate them financially in the way suggested in the Question? The present situation is a scandal, as the hon. Gentleman must know from the cases that have arisen in his constituency.

Mr. Heseltine: I certainly have had no representations from my constituents. But the law, as I understand it, enables local authorities to lay down conditions, and I certainly would not accept that we should do anything but praise the people who are now building new houses on such an unprecedented scale for those who need them so urgently.

Housing Land

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further discussions have taken place between his Department and local authorities aimed at securing land in outer London to relieve housing pressure in inner London; and what progress has been recorded.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): My Department is in continuous touch with all London boroughs about their housing programmes. The Action Group on London Housing has initiated a survey of all London boroughs to identify potential housing sites and to indicate when and by whom they might be developed. Preliminary results of this survey are now being received.

Mr. Grant: Is it not rather odd that the Minister for Housing and Construction is prepared, in effect, to send a gunboat to deal with those local authorities which do not want to make a profit out of their council house tenants while on the vital question of land shortage in inner London he is not prepared to use more than a feather duster on his Tory friends in the London boroughs which have the necessary sites? When will we get action?

Mr. Channon: I accept neither of the implications of the hon. Member's remarks. I need not go into the merits of the Housing Finance Bill this afternoon, but on the question of land in London I am sure the hon. Member will be pleased to know that I have every reason to expect local authority and private approvals this year to be better than last year.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my hon. Friend agree that some progress might be made by the inner London boroughs if they decided to co-operate in the rehabilitation schemes and not say bluntly that they are not prepared to co-operate, like the London Borough of Camden?

Mr. Channon: I hope all London boroughs will co-operate with the improvement campaign which is shortly to be held and which will be the largest in any city in the world. It can make an enormous difference to the condition of many sub-standard houses in London.

House Prices

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new policy moves he will initiate to check the rise in the price of new private houses.

Mr. Channon: The best hope for an easier market lies in increasing the sup-

ply of houses for sale. In 1971 completions in the private sector were nearly 13 per cent. up and starts about 26 per cent. up on 1970.
There is every reason to hope for continuation of this rising trend.

Mr. Grant: Will the Minister make it clear to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction that he is a calamity and a catastrophe, at least for Cupid? Young couples are being completely priced out of the market for new houses. The forecast was made this week of the £20,000 semi-detached house, which does not seem far off now that prices are rising at about 20 per cent. a year under the present Government. Again, when are we to get action and when will the Government accept their responsibility in the matter, or do they still say that competition will deal with this?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member is talking sheer nonsense. Private sector starts and completions are both on a rising trend and I hope to have the hon. Member's support for more private houses in London as well as elsewhere.

Motorways (Noise Barriers)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will erect temporary noise barriers on motorways at places where noise pollution is worst, pending the result of his study of forms of noise barriers.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Research on noise barriers is being actively pursued and I am anxious not to take precipitate action which might not be in the best long-term interests of the community, taking account of all environmental factors, including the adverse effects of visual instrusion. The Urban Motorways Committee is now considering the whole question of the interaction between motorways and the urban environment and I expect it will be advising me on the problem of noise as well as other factors.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgency of the matter, particularly on Ml, where there is now continuous traffic roar which causes disturbance several hundred yards downwind?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the urgency of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Lobbying

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to change arrangements for the reception of mass lobbies, as a result of the miners' lobby on 15th February.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The Services Committee recommended in its recent report a number of improvements in the arrangements made for mass lobbies. Some of the changes proposed concern both Houses of Parliament. Consultations about the report are at present taking place and these will take into account the further experience gained on 15th February.

Mr. Dalyell: When are we likely to have the agreement of the other place both on the question of barriers and on the question of the pavement along Old Palace Yard?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member will appreciate that I answered an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I did not cover these two points. I would hope that agreement will be reached very soon. Consultations are taking place. I do not anticipate any difficulties, but obviously we will have to see how we get on.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I understand and also observed the difficulties of that day, was it not perhaps, on reflection, unfortunate for the Leader of the House to describe the miners' lobby as a demonstration? Should it not be made clear that demonstrations at the Palace of Westminster are not lawful?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thought I referred to it throughout as a mass lobby. If I did not, the mistake is obviously mine. Nevertheless I reiterate what I have said all along that the miners' mass lobby was of a very good-humoured nature and thanks to the efforts of a great many people a very large number came into the Palace to see their Members of Parliament. This was right and I am sure it worked satisfactorily. We have lessons to learn from it, particularly about good communications both from St. Stephen's entrance up to the Committee rooms and

outside. These lessons we should learn, but I would not like anything to go out from the House other than it was a very good-humoured, extremely well-stewarded mass lobby.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure the whole House will endorse the remarks of the Leader of the House. Is he aware, however, that before June, 1970, there was a body called the Housewives League which used to protest about rising food prices? Since food prices have been increasing at an annual rate of 10 per cent. that body has ceased to exist. When it was in existence, every help and assistance was given to it to lobby at the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the same assistance to any lobby that may take place provided it is as well conducted as that of the miners?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Question which has been put to me concerns mass lobbies that have arrived here. That is quite enough for me without having to deal with those which have not yet decided to come.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ARTHUR LEWIS: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement on Government policy towards the recent report of the Services Committee on mass lobbying in relation to the rights of Members to interview their constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Lewis.

Mr. Lewis: I do not wish to ask this Question.

Widows of Members (Pension)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Lord President of the Council what is his policy towards the proposal in Command Paper No. 4836 that widows of Members of Parliament are not to be given the option to commute any portion of their pension, and although these are payable for life, they are to cease on remarriage or cohabitation, in view of the fact that the same conditions do not apply to widowers of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Whitelaw: The only difference so far as Members' widows and widowers specifically are concerned relates to


cessation of pension on cohabitation. The Government propose to implement the recommendation of the Boyle Committee so that this difference is removed.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this matter affects not only Members of Parliament but also some members of the Civil Service and the Armed Forces? Will he look into it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. We are putting the position straight in accordance with the Boyle Committee recommendation.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will list the powers under which Select Committees of this House will be able to send for persons, papers and records in investigating expenditure of British taxpayers' money in the European Economic Community; and if he will describe the form which Ministerial replies will take to recommendations relating to this expenditure.

Mr. Whitelaw: Select Committees have such power to send for any persons, papers and records as the House may expressly authorise. The form of ministerial replies to recommendations made by any Select Committee must depend on the recommendations.

Mr. Marten: How can my right hon. Friend take responsibility for expenditure for which he is not responsible?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think these are all matters which were properly considered in the various Committees we have set up to look at our future relationship with the European Community.

POPULATION GROWTH

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Lord President of the Council what action is contemplated by Her Majesty's Government in view of the population predictions of the Government Actuary and the Registrar-General relating to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Whitelaw: Departments in their long-term planning already take account of changes in the population projections. In addition to this, the Population Panel

is now studying the implications of population growth.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend fully seized of the fact that the United Kingdom is now the third most densely populated area in the world? England is the most densely populated. Does he know that the excess of births over deaths even now is 300,000 a year? Is it wise for the State to encourage people to have large families? Does my right hon. Friend recall that Gulliver told us that the Lilliputians thought nothing could be more unjust than for people to bring children into the world and leave the burden of supporting them on the public? Can he not encourage Britons to think the same?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are highly difficult and, in some cases, controversial matters. The Population Panel was set up and, I thought, was accepted by the House as a good response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is now considering all these matters and I would like to await its views before doing anything further.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Some of us would take the strongest possible exception to what has been said by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden). I was a member of a large family and we did all we possibly could for our people and our country, and our record is as good as the hon. Member's or that of anyone else in the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not seek to deny, in the light of my knowledge dating back over many years, what the hon. Member says about himself. As for myself I have to plead either well or badly according to which argument applies on the size of my own family. These are very important and difficult problems. It is right that the Population Panel should study them and I would not like to prejudge what it will say.

TELEPHONE SERVICE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. FOWLER: To ask the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on his discussions with the Post


Office about the rise in the demand for new telephones.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Written Question No. 1. Demand for new telephones is more than 30 per cent. up on last year. The Post Office has greatly increased the rate of installation but, with exchange capacity limited by the availability of equipment ordered in the past, the waiting list is growing. I have encouraged the Post Office to increase investment mainly in exchange equipment to the limit it can achieve, and I have recently approved a total addition to its investment of £100 million. Of this, £60 million will be spent in the next three years, the major part in development areas.
The Post Office believes that some increase in tariffs is also necessary if it is to continue to find some 50 per cent. of its rising investment out of revenue and is to deal with rapidly growing demand. It proposes to increase the rentals and connection charges, which do not now cover costs, the former by 50p a quarter and the latter at the maximum from £25 to £35. This would raise users' costs on average by 3 per cent. against the C.B.I.s 5 per cent. limit. The proposals have been referred to the Post Office Users' National Council, and meanwhile the Government reserve their position on them.

Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his new efforts to meet the demand for telephones will be widely welcomed, as will the news that charges for calls will not be increased? When does he expect the public to start benefiting from the increased investment he has just announced?

Mr. Chataway: Unfortunately, the lead times in installing exchange equipment are considerable. In the planning, ordering and installation of exchange equipment the period varies from three to five years. So the Post Office is up against a situation in which demand is outrunning the estimates which were made some years ago and on which investment was based. But the current increases in investment will enable the Post Office to move as fast as possible to increase the capacity of the system.

Mr. Richard: Is the Minister aware that he has just made an absolutely disgraceful statement? Against a background of an industry that last year made a profit of £93 million and which increased its return on capital from 8·4 per cent. to 9·8 per cent., for him now to ask people to pay an increased installation charge of £35, compared with £25, is little short of shameful. We on this side take a strong view of the matter. If the Post Office has to ration demand, it should do it in an honest and straightforward way, not by price.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Government that passed the 1969 Act, which required the Post Office to act as a commercial concern. It has met a large part of the increased costs of the past year out of increased productivity. Manpower productivity is rising by 8 per cent. What is proposed here is an increase amounting to 3 per cent. It is ludicrous for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the Post Office should alone be unable to take any steps to meet rising costs. If it is to finance its rising investment, it is reasonable that it should move some way towards correcting the under-pricing of some of its services. The average cost of installation is over £150. In that situation it is essential that the Post Office should at least consider some increases, and on that basis they have been referred to the Users' Council.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend explain why this public corporation has to finance new equipment out of revenue? Surely it would be much more sensible for this very well-run commercial organisation to go to the market in the same way as any other business? As a merchant banker, I should be very pleased to see my right hon. Friend after Questions.

Mr. Chataway: If the Post Office as constituted under present arrangements were to go to the market, that would mean in effect going with a Government guarantee, a situation that would differ very little from that which prevails now. The Post Office has to show a 10 per cent. return on capital. That return was fixed by the previous Government. Even if in the light of the Users' Council's reaction the present increases are granted, the Post Office would still have difficulty in meeting that target.

Mr. Driberg: Will the whole of the new connection charge have to be met by old and infirm people living alone, for whom a telephone is essential?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office still intends to install at much below the cost of installation. Local authorities have powers to help in cases where there is need, but it was made clear in the 1969 Act that it is not for the Post Office to take decisions about which sections of the community should be subsidised.

Captain W. Elliot: Is it not surprising that in conditions of strong and rising demand prices go up also? Surely in private industry the reverse is the case? Cannot a lesson be learned from this?

Mr. Chataway: It is a relatively modest overall increase that the Post Office suggests. Where a service is being supplied at below cost whether by a private concern or a public concern, rising demand can only lead the organisation concerned into further trouble if no steps are taken to correct the price structure.

Mr. Richard: Reverting to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), I feel that the Minister should know from the accounts, that the amount of capital investment which has been financed from internal sources in the Post Office has increased from 50·6 per cent. in 1969–70 to 56·6 per cent. in 1970–71. If the Minister adopted his right hon. Friend's suggestion, the increases would not be necessary. Why does he not do it?

Mr. Chataway: If the Post Office is to finance 50 per cent. of its investment, which is the reasonable target set by the previous Administration even in the coming year some price increase is necessary.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) raised a question during Question Time on the matter which has just been the subject of an announcement by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, the Minister said that

he would make a statement in answer to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. Gentleman's help in these matters. The content of a Minister's answer is nothing to do with the Chair. Points of order can only be to do with the Standing Orders of the House. The content of a Minister's statement or answer, unless it is out of order, repetitious or something of that sort, is a matter on which the Chair cannot intervene. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard my introductory remarks, but you did not hear the conclusion, in which I was going to put to you a point of order. With the greatest respect, if you never heard it, how can you rule? I was going to say that you were present and heard the Minister say that he would answer the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North. I was going to say: if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to answer and you gave him permission to make a statement but during that statement he not only did not answer but made no attempt to answer, is he not deceiving both the House and you by making such a statement knowing it to be dishonest and false?

Mr. Speaker: I want the help of the House in these matters. My instinct led me, correctly, to believe that the hon. Gentleman was not going to raise a point of order at all. That is why I interrupted him. The Chair must be allowed to intervene as soon as, by instinct, it realises that a point of order being raised is not, in fact, a point of order but is in the category described by one of my predecessors as "bogus points of order", although I am not making that particular allegation about the point put to me by the hon. Gentleman. In such circumstances, the Chair cannot be expected to wait until the end of the submission. Even if everything the hon. Gentleman has said is right, it is not a point of order.

ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's determinations following the Annual Farm Price Review. This year I am sure it would meet the wishes of the House to do so at once.
The background to this year's review is our approach to Europe. It is important that the industry should be in a position to expand competitively in the enlarged Community and so help the country to save on its overseas food bills. For this, investment is essential, particularly as early expansion is, in our view, important. We have examined with the farmers' unions the resources available.
The industry is today in a much healthier position than it was. The Government's policies are clearly succeeding. Output, productivity and aggregate income have all risen again. The cash position and the confidence of the industry are being restored. If we are going to get the quick expansion we need, further resources must be provided. We have decided to increase the value of the guarantees by well above the cost increases falling on the industry. The determinations thus provide a cash injection for further investment additional to the resources generated by the industry's own efforts and increasing scale. We believe that the industry will respond as it has done in the past.
We have put the main emphasis on the livestock sector, particularly on cattle, where the time lag between the decision to expand and the actual increase in production is inevitably longest; and we have put the money on end price guarantees. We have also decided to switch about 60 per cent. of the fertiliser subsidy to end prices. This will give the industry greater flexibility in the application of resources. In the case of horticulture, the fertiliser change will be offset by increasing the combined grant rate under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme from 35 to 40 per cent. Hill farmers will be helped by increasing the winter keep subsidies. We also propose to retain under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme the 10 per cent. supplement on drainage; at the same time, a few small

items will be eliminated from that scheme.
The main increases in the guarantees are as follows:

Milk—1p per gallon;
Beef—85p per cwt.;
Sheep—2p per lb.;
Pigs—5p per score;
Wheat—9p per cwt.;
Barley—11p per cwt.;
Oats—7p per cwt.; and
Sugar Beet—40p per ton.
These changes represent an increase of some £70½ million on the value of the guarantees. The capital grant changes I have mentioned are worth some £1½ million in addition. They will not add to consumer prices in this year.
I will circulate a note on these changes in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Further details about the review will be given in the White Paper, which will be published in the normal way on 15th March.

Mr. Peart: My first question does not necessarily concern the price review itself. Why is there not a White Paper for our colleagues in the House? I cannot remember a previous price review when a White Paper has not been issued giving the details. Is the omission because this is a good, or a bad, price review, or because there has been a leak? Or is it because the Government wish to hurry a decision for other reasons? This is a break with tradition in the House, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell me in detail why there is no White Paper. No Member of the House can clearly appreciate fully what the right hon. Gentleman has said unless he has carefully read a White Paper to go with it. This omission never occurred in the time of the Labour Government, in which I was Minister of Agriculture.
My second question relates to the background to the review. Is the Minister thinking in terms of entry into the European Economic Community? I hope he will not be so arrogant about this matter. After all, the House not not yet decided. Is he preparing his review in relation to entry now or at a specific time, or is he prepared to wait and see what Parliament decides?
Thirdly, is this the last price review that we are to have. Is this why we have no White Paper? Is this why hon. Members opposite have cavalierly adopted such an attitude towards the annual


review procedure? Is this the last price review that we shall be able to debate fully on the Floor of the House?
Fourthly, what is the total effect of the determination which the right hon. Gentleman has made? What is the increased Exchequer commitment? Is it about £50 million? This is a very important matter.
Fifthly, what will be the true effect on the consumer? The country will not believe that there is to be none. The consumer will have to pay directly in some form for the end price, or otherwise, as a taxpayer, he will have to pay through increased Exchequer expenditure.
I turn now to specific aspects. The first is the case of the hill farmers. Winter keep affects the Scottish uplands very much. What about the hill farmers of the North of England and Scotland? What does the right hon. Gentleman estimate as the cost of the switch of 60 per cent. fertiliser subsidy to the end price? Is this an agreed price review on the basis of the E.E.C.'s acceptance of our entry or is it because certain people on the producer side are prepared to acquiesce?

Mr. Prior: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question first. The price review is agreed between the farmers' unions and ourselves. I have made the announcement a fortnight earlier than usual in order to give hon. Members a fair chance of having the information first and not having inaccurate reports of the sort which have appeared year after year, particularly during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The White Paper will follow in a fortnight's time. We have made our announcement two weeks early so that there should be no confusion amongst farmers or hon. Members.
This review takes into consideration our entry into Europe; not only that, but it is based on giving the expansion now rather than later on. Whether this is the last price review depends on a number of factors, but certainly it will be the last one in the present form.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Exchequer commitment and the interests of the consumers. As I have said, there is no direct increased cost to the consumer this year at all. The increased Exchequer commitment will

vary, of course, depending on market prices, but is estimated to be £49 million.
Dealing with winter keep, the transfer of 60 per cent. of the fertilizer subsidy means that we have increased winter keep, which is the same thing as saying that we have increased the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies in England and Wales by approximately £1 million.

Sir Robin Turton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend in that this is the first time a February Price Review has been announced on 1st March. Could he state exactly how much of the £70½ million award is represented by increased costs which have arisen since the last review? Secondly, as the White Paper is not coming out until 15th March, can he say what is the position about the incentive payments scheme, which is due to end on 18th March? This is causing a great deal of anxiety.

Mr. Prior: The change in costs for all commodities, including eggs—it is £54½ million excluding eggs—is £48 million. As for the captal grant scheme, we are taking off the 10 per cent. supplement which was designed to last for two years except for land drainage, for which the extra 10 per cent. is being retained on a permanent basis. The extra 10 per cent. supplement ends on 18th March for all applications put in after that date. There is then a period afterwards for the work to be carried out. My right hon. Friend will be glad to know that investment in the type of work covered by this scheme has increased by 25 per cent.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made a totally inadequate statement and that it is scandalous that we have had to listen to it without the benefit of a White Paper, especially as the details appeared in the newspapers this morning? Dealing with costs, does he recall that last year he excluded milk and eggs from the standard quantity and that this amounted to £24 million? Has he excluded these sums from the determination this year, and if so, to what extent? Turning to the fertiliser subsidy and the switch of the 60 per cent., can he say how much money this involves? Is he aware that the subsidy was of considerable assistance to farmers?

Mr. Prior: It is strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this is a totally inadequate award when I tell him that this is by far the best award since 1948. He has not a great deal to boast about. Dealing with the fertiliser subsidy, the switch from subsidy to the end price represents £20 million out of approximately £32 million, which is about 60 per cent. of the fertiliser subsidy. As for the way the costs are calculated, this is done in precisely the same way as last year, and they relate only to production within standard quantities. For production of guaranteed commodities outside standard quantities there was a net cost reduction of £2½ million. Milk went up by £2 million, pigs went up by £500,000 and eggs went down by £5 million.

Mr. Peter Mills: While it is a fact the confidence has been restored in agriculture, which is in sharp contrast to the mess we had before, would my right hon. Friend make it clear that this system is the best insurance for the consumer and it will ensure that all sections of the farming community, including farmworkers, can now look forward to further prosperity?

Mr. Prior: That is quite true. Production this year is up by 4½per cent. It is on a strongly expanding level. I believe that it is in the best interest of consumers as much as the nation as a whole that we should have a healthy and strong British agriculture. I pay tribute to the agricultural industry for the part that it is playing.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complacent picture he has painted this afternoon about the cash position and confidence in the industry is totally at variance with the views of Cornish farmers as expressed in a letter which all Cornish Members received from the chairman of the Cornish N.F.U.? Is he aware that in the light of this his review is quite inadequate to encourage the expansion he wants, inadequate to encourage the investment that is necessary, and a totally inadequate base for a decent living wage for agricultural workers? Is he further aware that there is a real impression among farmers in the West Country that the Government, licking the wounds

inflicted upon them at the hands of the miners, have decided to take it out on the farmers and agricultural workers.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, knows far better than the National Farmers' Union.

Sir D. Renton: While welcoming the full recoupment of costs which this Price Review gives, as well as the injection of capital for expansion, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can assure arable farmers who have grown a great deal of wheat and barley this year and are finding difficulty in selling it at a profit that the help he is giving them in this review will enable them to overcome their difficulties next season?

Mr. Prior: The increases in the arable sector, particularly for barley of 11p per cwt. and wheat of 9p per cwt., are an indication that we feel that the arable sector should have a fair share of the review this year. I know that things have not been easy for cereal growers in the last year or two, but I am certain that they can look forward to better times from now on.

Mr. Loughlin: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is an offence to this House that so many ministerial statements are leaked to the Press before they are disclosed to this House? I am not trying to fix blame, but will he try to see in future that statements to be made to this House are not leaked by anyone in his Department to the Press? Dealing with the review, is it not true that the increases in prices relate to commodities the prices of which at present lag behind those in the Common Market and that he is doing this to cushion the impact of our entry to the Common Market?

Mr. Prior: May I deal with the first point, which I take extremely seriously. I assure the House that I can categorically deny that there was any leak whatsoever from my Department. What is more, the leaks, or so-called leaks, that have occurred are totally inaccurate. One of the reasons why I have announced this review a fortnight before the proper time of 15th March—it has always been around that time—is solely that I wanted the House to have the information first.


I have done my utmost to serve the House in this way, and I feel the vast majority of hon. Members appreciate that. As for the relationship between E.E.C. prices and our own, we have put the emphasis of our prices slightly on livestock. This year we are bound to consult with the E.E.C. and it with us. We are in no way bound to take advice from it, nor is it bound to take advice from us.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers at any rate will be grateful to him for making this statement on the earliest possible day and that they will welcome the encouragement he has given to the investment which is essential for future expansion? Can he give some further information about the review in Scotland, and, in particular, on the help which has been given to hill farmers through the improvement of the winter keep scheme?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As for the winter keep scheme, an extra £1 million is being put into this. I understand that in Scotland it can be taken either in the form of subsidy on forage crops or added to the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. The way in which this is to be determined is still a matter for consultation. Generally speaking, the farmers in Scotland will be extremely pleased about the high awards for beef cattle and sheep. Both of those are items which Scottish farmers grow extraordinarily well, and I hope they will take full advantage of this.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that this price review reflects completely inappropriate priorities at this time, and, in particular, that he has discriminated against the hills and uplands by a straight cash grant cut of £20 million on fertilisers and has not compensated for that by £1 million on winter keep?
Furthermore, can the right hon. Gentleman say what small items have been removed from the farm capital scheme and when the housewife is going to have to pay this extra 1p—the old 2½d.—for milk?

Mr. Prior: Let me say straight away that the housewife will not be required

to pay the extra 1p on milk and that there is no question of any increase in the foreseeable future in the retail price of milk.
Hill farmers in Scotland are gaining every bit as much by the increase in the winter keep supplement as they may lose by the cut in the fertiliser subsidy. In addition to that, for the first time for many years we have seen the price for beef and sheep going right back into the hills and into the marginal districts, and this has given more confidence to hill farmers in Scotland, Wales and the North and South of England than anything done by the previous Government.

Mr. Charles Morrison: There seems little doubt that the vast majority of farmers will warmly welcome the cost plus review, but could my right hon. Friend say how investment in the industry in 1971 compared with that in the previous year, and what the forecast is for the coming year?

Mr. Prior: Investment in buildings and works is 23 per cent. up, not 25 per cent. as I told my right hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, with the grants continuing at the rates I have mentioned we can expect investment to continue at a very high level. When one remembers that for the past two years the industry has been able to keep all the extra cash which it has earned as a result of its own efforts, as it were, and has not had this taken away from it, I think we can all look forward with great confidence.
One of the capital grants which I have abolished is that for the grubbing-out of hedgerows and various pieces of woodland. I believe that on scientific, environmental and ecological grounds this should be abolished.

Mr. Mackie: I do not want to be ungracious to the Minister, but the price of fat cattle has been £ 1 per cwt. above the guarantee for the past year at least and the 85p is not going to do a lot of good. If he is not going to soak the consumer for the new penny on milk, where will he get it—from the Milk Marketing Board or by increasing the prices of cheese and butter? Finally, the psychological effect of taking £20 million off the fertiliser subsidy will reduce production, particularly of the smaller farms.

Mr. Prior: On the fertiliser point, it seems to me inconceivable that, with the knowledge that the optimum use of fertiliser is absolutely essential to maximum production, any farmer should not continue to use the proper quantity of fertiliser. What I believe we are doing by getting away from production grants and putting emphasis on the end price is concentrating farmers' minds on marketing, and this is the real crux of the problem that we are going to face in the Community.
As for where the increase in the price of milk is coming from, this will come out of the milk fund, which has been increased enormously in the past year, of course, as a result of what I might call the catastrophic increase in butter and cheese prices. I felt the least we could do was to see that the price of milk to the consumer was stabilised for as long as possible.
Beef prices are very high at the moment. We are underpinning the situation but this sort of award gives great confidence to the beef producer.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope my right hon. Friend realises that the acceptance by him of the need for capital injection will be very much appreciated. Nevertheless, what really matters here is where it goes, and there are some areas which need it more than others. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has taken fully into account, and that the N.F.U. has also taken fully into account, the points which some of the Fen constituencies have been putting to him in this connection?

Mr. Prior: It is always a matter of some difficulty to get the balance exactly right. I dare say that had I managed to agree to give more to the Fens and perhaps the East of England I should have upset the West of England, and vice versa. I think we have a fair balance.
The position on potatoes, which I know affects my hon. Friend's constituency enormously, is that we have not felt able to increase the guarantees because we have a situation which is costing the Exchequer a considerable

amount of money and there is overproduction of potatoes. But we are proposing to carry out a full examination of the guarantee and marketing arrangements in the coming year in consultation with all sections of the industry and meanwhile are consulting all the interests concerned on proposals for making potatoes available to the potato granule industry at very economic prices so as to retain this outlet.

Mr. Buchan: Surely the Minister must realise that he has made a grossly inadequate statement today. In order to avoid a leak presumably, he has come here without a White Paper. So he has the worst of both worlds: he has no White Paper and he has a leak. This annual price review does not have a background of Europe; it is dominated by Europe, because it seeks to unscramble what has been the basic system of support in British agriculture for the past 20 years.
We do not agree with this emphasis on end price. The only result will be that the consumer will pay more, after a year in which prices have risen by 13 per cent. On the Scottish point, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the cut of £20 million on fertilisers is not compensated for by the addition of £1 million on the winter keep scheme and that there is no guarantee that the end price will necessarily feed back to the marginal producers?

Mr. Prior: I have covered the last point on at least three separate occasions, and there is absolutely no truth in the hon. Gentleman's accusation.
As far as the publication of the White Paper is concerned, hon. Members opposite are being hypocritical. The White Paper is never published until after the statement anyhow; so as far as that goes they are in no worse a position this afternoon than ever before.
As to the question of end price and the dismantling of our agricultural system, I am quite certain that if any farmer in the British Isles today were asked which system he would rather have he would prefer ours.

Following is the information:

THE DETERMINATIONS FOR 1972–73*


Commodity
Guaranteed price for 1971–72
Change from Col. (2)
Guaranteed price for 1972–73


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


Wheat (per cwt.)
…
…
…
£1·63
+9p
£1·72


Barley (per cwt.)
…
…
…
£1·45
+11p
£1·56


Oats (per cwt.)
…
…
…
£1·44
+7p
£1·51


Rye (per cwt.)
…
…
…
£1·08
No change
£1·08


Potatoes (per ton)
…
…
…
£16·55
No change
£16·55


Sugar beet (per ton)
…
…
…
£7·60
+40p
£8·00


Fat cattle (per live cwt.)
…
…
…
£12·35
+85p
£13·20


Fat sheep (per lb. e.d.c.w.)
…
…
22·3p
+2·0p
24·3p


Fat pigs (per score d.w.)
…
…
…
£2·93
+5p
£2·81(b)**






equivalent (on the basis of the current feed price) to £2·76




Milk (per gallon)
…
…
…
22·1p
+ 1·0p
23·lp(c)†


Eggs—hen (per dozen)
…
…
…
16·5p
- 0·5p
16·0p


Eggs—duck (per dozen)
…
…
…
15·5p
No change
15·5p


Wool (per lb.)
…
…
…
22·7p
+ 0·3p
23·0p


Relevant production grants


Fertiliser subsidy: reduction in rates equivalent to £20 million.


Winter keep subsidy: increase in rates equivalent to £1 million.


Farm Business Recording Scheme: termination in May 1972 as already announced.


Non-relevant production grants


Farm Capital Grant Scheme: continuation of grants for drainage at the enhanced rates of the last two years; elimination of various minor items.


Horticulture Improvement Scheme: increase in rates of grant.


Notes:


* Changes in the basis of the guarantees will be set out more fully later in the Annual Review White Paper.


** (b) Fat pigs. The middle band under the flexible guarantee arrangements will be 14·35–15·0 million certifications.


†(c) Milk. In addition to the increase shown the guaranteed price for the Northern Ireland milk marketing area will be raised by 0·15p per gallon. The standard quantities for Great Britain will remain at their 1971–72 levels but that for Northern Ireland will be increased by 14·8 million gallon, to 120 million gallons.


Exchequer commitment


These determinations involve an increased Exchequer commitment for 1972/73 of about £49 million

MAIN ECONOMIC DATA

1. Income, output and productivity

The figures in the following table update the series shown in Table 13 of the 1971 Annual Review White Paper and incorporate revisions to the figures in the earlier years:

ALL COMMERCIALLY SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS


June-May years



Net Income at current prices
Net Product at constant prices
Labour Productivity


Year
Actual
3-year moving average
Index
Index







£m.
£m.
Average of 1964/65–1966/67 = 100


1967–68
…
…
…
…
527
501
107
116


1968–69
…
…
…
…
490
528
100
114


1969–70
…
…
…
…
567
556
105
124


1970–71
…
…
…
…
611 (612*)
615
111
135


1971–72 (forecast)

…
…
668 (630*)
—
116
143


* Adjusted to normal weather conditions.

2. Gross capital formation

Year
In plant, machinery and vehicles 
In buildings and works
Stock valuation changes
Total



£m.
£m.
£m.
£m.


1967
…
…
…
…
111
75
37
223


1968
…
…
…
…
123
87
52
262


1969
…
…
…
…
113
97
70
280


1970
…
…
…
…
118
110
114
342


1971 (forecast)
…
…
…
127
135
125
387

3. Aggregate cost changes


Net change for all products
…
+£56½ million.


Net change on guaranteed production
…
+£48 million.

4. Exchequer support for agriculture

The cost to public funds of agricultural support in 1972–73 was review at £341 million.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 17TH MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Clinton Davis.
Mr. Marcus Worsley.
Mr. Hugh Dykes.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. William Hamilton: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter which I think may constitute a breach of privilege. The matter to which I refer is based on an article in the current issue of the Spectator written by a Mr. Hugh Macpherson and entitled "Faith, hope and charity". It deals with the honours system and makes certain allegations or inferences about Members of this House including the Prime Minister himself. A few quotations will indicate the seriousness of the problem.
The article says:
The demand for public honours is high. People are prepared to go to great lengths to obtain them. Just how far they will go was illustrated during the run up to the last election when Mr. Wilson was approached by a Tory MP with the offer of important information about the Conservative election plans in return for a peerage. The first approach was made at the time of the Labour party conference in the autumn of 1969 and it was refused. In the immediate run-up to the 1970 election the offer was renewed, and on this occasion, the demand was dropped to that of a knighthood in return for reports of election tactics of the Conservative party. This was also refused.
The article goes on:
There was considerable discussion in the corridors of Westminster about the following

extraordinary passage in a political pamphlet published last year by David Rendel Limited obviously on behalf of the anti-Market campaigners, entitled 'Pride, prejudice and persuasion: A study in the manipulation of Public opinion in Britain'. It was written by someone with the pseudonym 'Cato':"—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: That is not me.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member had better keep quiet.
It goes on:
… by the time de Gaulle departed, the various European pressure groups had agreed to emerge under the banner of the relatively efficient European Movement, and were in a good position to appeal to their friends in business for real money to supplement the small amounts which they had been receiving from wellwishers, such as Mr. Harold Wilson's government (which provided £7,500 a year throughout its time in office).
The article goes on:
Jeoffrey … Archer, who is a noted fund-raiser (in several respects) was put in charge of the operation in 1969, and business was not slow to respond.
An asterisk after that refers to the following footnote:
e.g. £300,000 in April and another £300,000 when the Honours List was published both from the same individual source.
The article goes on:
An MP told me early last November that a prominent Jewish business man (with an even more prominent son-in-law) who was a very large donor to charity, who was now retired from business and lived in the country and did not figure in Who's Who, was about to receive a knighthood in the New Year's Honours List. He said the person in question had already given a very large sum of money to the European Movement. Naturally I"—
that is, presumably, the writer of the article—
perused the New Year's List with some care.
The name of Michael Sobell appeared in the PM's List, the citation being 'for charitable


services'. The MP subsequently said that Mr. Sobell was indeed the person to whom he had been referring. Mr. Sobell's son-in-law is Mr. Arnold Weinstock.
Mr. Archer did, I understand, arrange a substantial donation of around £600,000 to the European Movement from Sir Michael Sobell last year. The honour, as I have noted was given for 'charitable services'".
I apologise for the length of these quotations, Mr. Speaker, but I have nearly finished. The article goes on:
Sir Michael was the second largest single donor to the European Movement. He gave the massive sum of around £600,000 early in 1971 but temporarily withdrew half of it some time later, apparently because of considerations to do with share prices.
The final paragraph says:
It is a matter of some public concern that a man so worthy of honour should be successfully commended to the Prime Minister in the year when he was so generous to the political cause (rather than the charitable purposes) so dear to Mr. Heath's heart. Apparently, when the 'Cato' pamphlet was printed there was some concern among Government ministers about the pamphlet's possible effect. It is also disturbing that it was apparently known in Westminster that a particular honour was to be bestowed well in advance of its award.
Of course, the common courtesy of the House is to inform the hon. Member whose name is mentioned in the article. I so informed him and I know that he has got the letter because I have had a reply from him.
Whether you rule, Mr. Speaker, that the article constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege is, of course, a question for you and your advisers, but, in any event, it involves the honour of this House and its Members very intimately. Therefore, subject to your ruling, I would propose to pursue the matter in other ways open to me as a Member of the House.
Journal handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I will rule upon this matter tomorrow.

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the protection of endangered species of wild creatures and for the establishment of a National Wild Life Authority.
It is an honoured tradition of the House that even when confronted with great and immediate issues it can find a few moments to turn its attention to issues perhaps less dramatic and less controversial. I do not claim that this is a matter of such immediate urgency as others which the House has debated and will be debating this week, but as our generation is in many fields reaping the harvest of our predecessors' blindness our grandchildren may complain of us that we never spared a thought for posterity.
Of all species of wild creatures—there are about 20,000 species in this country alone—man is one of the very few which are increasing in numbers. Almost all the others are diminishing. Perhaps the first pioneer of our contemporary concern with the environment, Rachel Carson, called her book "Silent Spring", when no bird will sing, because there will be no birds.
The House heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) that the next generation may know no Gavin Maxwell, because there may be no otters to observe. The sparrow hawk may, within a few years, be a memory perpetuated in books. Butterflies like the Sussex Emerald may be seen only preserved in museums.
On the international scene a few years ago Stubbs' painting of the Indian cheetah was sold for £220,000 at almost exactly the time when the last living Indian cheetah that the world will ever see was dying because there were not sufficient resources to save the species.
It is not only for the sake of the wild creatures themselves that this is a matter of concern, Without its wild life the world will be a poorer place for humans. I was born, as many of my constituents' children are still, in the great West Midlands conurbation where no badgers are to be seen and no nightingales are to be heard. We had few books, and television was a thing of the future. Visits


to the country were rare and brief. This generation is more fortunate in being provided with many attractive books, good television programmes and ready access to the countryside. It would be a tragedy if the first generation of town children who can observe wild life should be the last to have wild life to observe.
It is not only a matter of according to animals the right to exist. It is not only a matter of preserving a richer heritage for children. Man may follow other animals which destroy their own means of subsistence. Destruction of plankton in one estuary may mean irreversible harm to marine ecology, resulting in fish famine.
I turn to the proposals in the Bill. The House will understand that in the short time available I leave a number of obvious questions unanswered. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a wild life authority with overall responsibility for assessing the needs, for advising authorities responsible for planning, for the widest possible programme of education, and for enforcing legislation. A primary purpose will be to advise the Secretary of State and planning authorities on planning decisions, because the greatest single threat to wild life is the progressive destruction of habitat.
The House will understand that I use the word "progressive" in its geometrical sense. Every time a wood is destroyed, or even thinned out in the interest of forestry, that is the end of hearing the nightingale in that area. I am not suggesting that we should never drive a motorway through what was previously a wood, or chop down trees to make a housing estate. I am suggesting that proposals for such development should be referred to the authority, so that whoever takes the decision will not take it while unaware of the consequences.
Nor would I discourage the principle of nature reserves, but there is a dangerous form of thinking which imagines that if one draws half a dozen small circles on a map one can do what one likes with all the rest without any fear of the consequences. That is the kind of thinking which has already resulted in the destruction of many primitive tribes of human beings. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that whenever a decision is taken relating to the environment wild life will have its advocate to state the

case. The authority would advise the Secretary of State when it is necessary to stop the killing of a species or to control the methods of killing. This is not an anti-hunting Bill. I would not seek to enter into the controversy which we heard in the House yesterday between my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I have my views, but one cannot deal with every problem in one Bill.
The authority would advise the Secretary of State to protect a species only when it is endangered. There may be occasions when it would advise the Secretary of State that a species is too numerous, that it has reached pest proportions, or is endangering the balance of the ecology. The authority might then advise on steps which should be taken to cull that species. It could also tender advice about the control of unintentional killing of a species by pollution. It would have power to prosecute for infringements, both of legislation which it had itself initiated and existing legislation, such as the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, and the Deer Act, 1963. But I hope that it would not react to every problem by reaching for its summons. It might discover, like the Race Relations Board, that sensible talk and the processes of education are often more effective weapons than prosecution.
The Bill is primarily concerned, of course, with wild life in this country, but we are learning that in many fields we cannot divide the world into watertight compartments. Wild life may be saved for the world only by international cooperation. The authority would advise the Secretary of State as to where legislation is needed to prohibit the importation of certain animal products. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) is already arranging with one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry to discuss with a deputation from the Friends of the Earth methods by which this can be done effectively and without undue inconvenience, as it is done in many parts of North America.
I intend no criticism of existing institutions. The Natural Environment Research Council, particularly its Nature


Conservancy Unit, the Countryside Commission and the Forestry Commission, have all proved to be mindful, and effectively mindful, of the needs of wild life within their terms of reference, but they have neither the powers nor the resources to mount the kind of rescue operation for which this situation calls. I do not wish to be dogmatic as to what is required. There is no single answer, and if the House gives leave for this Bill to be introduced I shall welcome advice. I am most grateful for the advice and encouragement which I have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One thing which has impressed me—and this is one of the many subjects in which I claim no expertise—is that this is a field in which one meets many able and sensible people. If I single out the Committee for Natural Wild Life Control and Preservation, it is because I had the good fortune to meet it early in the course of my inquiries, and I received from it much unstinting help and advice.
After full discussion, we may conclude that the demands of the technological age are so overwhelming that there is no way of saving our wild life. If that is so, we can at least leave our reasons on record for posterity. I only ask the House to say that we will not leave a message to future generations that the disaster happened because we could not spare a little time even to consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Blenkinsop, Mrs. Butler, Mr. Crouch, Mr. Dalyell, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Faulds, Mr. Green, Mr. James Johnson, Miss Lestor, Mr. St. John Stevas and Mr. Steel.

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION

Bill to provide for the protection of endangered species of wild creatures and for the establishment of a National Wild Life Authority, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (CONDUCT)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) to move the Motion:
That this House considers that the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 29th February to the Committee of the whole House sitting on the European Communities Bill gravely infringes the rights of the House and its powers of decision on the issues raised by the Bill, and that, therefore, a full new selection of Amendments should be proposed.
I inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), leave out from 'House' to 'a' and insert:
',having regard to the difficulty imposed on the Chairman of Ways and Means by the form and content of the European Communities Bill, considers that'.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As you know, Ms. Speaker, I would be the last, I hope, in this House in any way ever to query or still less to challenge, your discretion in the selection of Amendments. May I, however, very respectfully draw your attention to one factor in the Motion which gives rise to certain difficulty?
This Motion is unusual and possibly unique in the category of Motions concerned with the conduct of the Chair in that it combines two quite distinct elements, first, an element of criticism of the conduct of the Chair, and, secondly, a constructive suggestion as to the future. There may very well be—indeed to my knowledge there are—hon. and right hon. Members who, while rejecting the first element, would wish to adopt the second, and the Amendment in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and mine is designed to meet that point.
May I respectfully ask your consideration of the dilemma imposed upon those holding that not unnatural view who desire to reject the element of criticism of the Chair but to adopt the constructive suggestion to resolve the unique and unprecedented difficulties of this particular Bill?
Therefore, without in the least degree querying your discretion, Mr. Speaker,


may I respectfully invite you to reconsider your decision with a view to removing a dilemma and giving the House and its Members that free and untrammelled exercise of their view which is in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has put his point. In fact, I have carefully considered that point of view and I am aware of the dilemmas. But dilemmas are not for me. I am afraid I must adhere to my decision not to select the Amendment.

Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am greatly concerned about the position in which the House is placing itself in regard to the European Communities Bill. The reasons for my concern have been stated from time to time, but have never been answered. It must be remembered that on this great constitutional issue there is an even greater constitutional treaty in existence than that which is referred to in the Bill—namely, the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England. There are certain implied rules and regulations in the Treaty of Union and there are certain prohibitions—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not see how this can be a point of order. It may be a matter for debate or a matter for a Motion, but I am not prepared for hon. Members, under the guise of points of order, to have a lengthy discussion about the effect of the Act of Union. I must insist that such matters are put before me in the form of a Motion. I cannot allow points of order to be raised on the Act of Union.

Mr. Baxter: Further to that point of order. I am the last person to wish to argue with the Chair on a matter of procedure, since I know the difficulties which one experiences, but I regard this as a most important point. This affects the country of Scotland, and there is considerable concern there about this Bill coming before the House, bearing in mind the simple fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member was kind enough to say that he did not wish to argue with me. He has said that he attaches great importance to these matters, and I have no doubt

that they are important, but I must point out that they are not matters of order for me to rule upon at this moment. They are matters to be raised in debate, or discussion, or by Motion, or in some other way.

4.33 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move,
That this House considers that the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 29th February to the Committee of the whole House sitting on the European Communities Bill gravely infringes the rights of the House and its powers of decision on the issues raised by the Bill, and that, therefore, a full new selection of Amendments should be proposed.
Even on St. David's Day I shall resist the temptation which has been placed before me by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. W. Baxter) to pursue the implications of this legislation in regard to Wales exclusively.
I say at the outset that this Motion is not, and is not intended to be, a personal attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means. Least of all is it an imputation, as I said yesterday, against his good faith and integrity. He is, of course, greatly respected by the whole House and I am sure that I have the whole House with me in saying that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The fact is that the procedure we have adopted in tabling this Motion was the only way which it seemed to us that the interpretation placed by the Chair on the scope and content of the European Communities Bill could be discussed and debated. The alternative would have been a prolonged and potentially disorderly discussion.
What we are challenging today by the terms of our Motion is not a question of the Chair's selection but, as the Chairman himself put it yesterday, one of order. As the Chairman then said,
most of the Amendments—indeed, all of the more important Amendments—have been omitted not in virtue of my power of selection but because they are out of order and could not be called in any circumstances.
The Chairman's interpretation of the rules of order therefore is quite crucial to the whole rôle and function of Parliament and this House in its consideration of this historic and unprecedented Bill. The Chairman himself rightly described


it yesterday as one of the most fundamental and important Bills which have ever been before the House of Commons. If the Ruling stands unamended and unqualified by subsequent action, it will as a matter of order muzzle proper consideration and decision by this House on a Bill which, if it becomes law, will restrict the power of Parliament to debate and resolve: first, questions vital to the finances and economy of our country; secondly, important changes in our law; thirdly, the control by the House over public expenditure; fourthly, restrictions which will be placed on the rights and powers of our courts of law—matters which affect every subject in the land.
If as a matter of order Parliament can be so circumscribed that important Amendments which the Opposition have tabled cannot be made debatable, the consequence will be to reduce the rôle of this House in the consideration of the issues raised by this momentous Bill to discussion merely of the comparatively trivial and superficial. It will make this the most procrustean Bill in our Parliamentary history and its examination by Parliament the most futile.
Was this the deliberate intention and purpose of the Government? I hope the Government will answer that question frankly and fully in this debate. Did they intend that the Bill should be so contrived that it could only bear the interpretation which the Chairman of Ways and Means has so far placed upon it?
I submit that, happily, if that were their intention it has not succeeded. They have not been clever enough. In my submission, the form and content of the Bill make it in order for the House to debate and decide upon not simply the package of treaties and regulations as a whole but any particular parts of the package which the House may wish to discuss and decide upon.
As I understand it, the crux of the Chairman's Ruling is to be found at col. 269 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, and it is as follows:
'… The Bill provides the legal nuts and bolts which are necessary if the United Kingdom is to be a member of the Communities. It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties which are basic to the membership of the Communities … if it were such a Bill, then, of course, every article of these treaties would be open to discussion and the majority of Amendments

to Clause 1 would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 268–9.]
The first question I wish to ask—and I hope that we shall have a reply from the Government—is when and how were the Treaty of Accession and the other treaties approved? When did it happen? What parliamentary procedure has been followed to give that approval? Are we to have a separate parliamentary approval procedure in another Bill or by some other means?
To say that parliamentary approval to treaties which alter our law is essential before they can become law is a platitude, though perhaps the use of that word is inappropriate, bearing in mind the importance that Parliament has always attached to its right to reject treaty provisions which alter our law and impose new obligations upon our fellow countrymen. It is a rule which goes back to the beginning of Parliament itself, as long ago as 1365, with the case of Molyns versus Fiennes. The defendant's name is interesting, in the circumstances. That case in the 14th century is authority for our modern rule of constitutional law that a treaty which changes or modifies our law needs the sanction of Parliament. As Lord McNair has put it—and there is no greater authority—
In the United Kingdom, with a very limited class of exceptions, no treaty is self executing.
To this Parliament, these treaties are not within the class of exceptions, and I do not suppose that it will be contended that they are.
If this Bill, if accepted, does not constitute approval of the Treaty of Accession, what parliamentary action is claimed to have done it? Surely not the debate that we had last October. Surely not the debate that we had on 20th January of this year. The conclusion of that debate was not a formal expression by this House of approval of the Treaty of Accession. The terms of the treaty were not before the House on that occasion. Indeed, the complaint which was the basis of the Motion on which the debate was founded was about the failure of the Government to lay the text of the treaty before the House before it was signed. It cannot possibly be said that approval in principle was given by the


House on either of those previous occasions to which I have referred.
Even if approval in principle had been given, as Lord Atkin said in the Canadian case which was cited yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), that would not preclude the assenting Parliament—that is, this Parliament—or any subsequent Parliament from refusing to give its sanction to any legislative proposals that might be brought before it subsequently. It will be fascinating to see, therefore, whether the Government accept the proposition that the Bill is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession and, if they accept that proposition, what they propose to do about the gaping void.
Apart from that point, it is semantic nonsense to say that this Bill is not a Bill to approve the treaties. It is not merely a question of the words of the Long Title of the Bill, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) drew the attention of the Committee yesterday, although those words are highly relevant in themselves and, as he pointed out, have statutory effect.
The Long Title of the Bill describes the Bill as
A Bill to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom," etc.
If that does not involve this House in consenting to the enlargement of the European Communities, I do not know what does.
Even more crucial and more significant is Clause 2(1). That provision gives binding legal effect at once and without further enactment to the incorporation into our law of 41 volumes of foreign law. Is that only nuts and bolts? Is that mere machinery? Clearly, it is not. It makes substantive and substantial changes in our law by incorporating into our law and by accepting and approving for inclusion in our law a whole mass of Community treaties, and, of course, the Treaty of Accession itself.
Clause 1, where the treaties are defined, involves similar acceptance and approval of the treaties. Those are the facts of the situation in which the House finds itself. To contend otherwise is an artificial and semantic escape from the reality of the Bill and its Clauses. It is substituting form for substance, and the

substance of the matter is that if we pass Clause 2 we shall be approving the treaties and the law of the treaties. We are doing nothing less. Certainly we are doing that much.
If this is not a ratifying statute, I do not know what is. The nature and the terms of the Bill bring within the rules of order of this House and of this Parliament Amendments to enable the House to discuss and to decide whether to accept or reject not merely the whole package to which the Chair's interpretation would confine the House but any separate part of the package with which the House may desire to deal and to which the rejected Amendments are directed. It will be Parliament's last opportunity to do so. If the Bill is passed, not only does the House accept the whole package; it commits itself to the future acceptance of self-enacting laws which will emerge from the Community organ. However, that is not the position today. At this stage, Parliament is free to reject any part of the package of treaties that it chooses.
I have come across no authority from Lord McNair, Erskine May or any other learned treatise on this matter, which says that Parliament has not this power and cannot do this. If Parliament fails to exercise that power which it has and fails to do so during the consideration of the Committee stage of the Bill, the chance will not come again. Therefore my right hon. and hon. Friends ask that the Chairman's Ruling on order should be reconsidered and that a full new selection of Amendments should be prepared. We do so with respect to the Chairman himself and to those who advise him. But we submit with the same respect that, in this judgment on interpretation and construction, that which I have submitted to the House is in accord with precedent and with the rules of the House.
It is true that if Amendments to leave out certain provisions of the treaties were carried in Committee and at the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill difficult problems could arise. It might require renegotiation of that part of the package that the House, in its wisdom, might see fit to reject. But why should Parliament be denied the opportunity of requiring Ministers to do that if Parliament wishes? Are the Government afraid of defending the details of the package on their merits?
I must now ask the Solicitor-General, for whom I have nothing but respect, some questions to which I hope he will give the House some frank answers.
Was the Bill contrived, and deliberately contrived, to limit the ambit of parliamentary decision on the treaties and foreign law that it was to incorporate in our law? Why, for instance, were the relevant treaties not scheduled to the Bill? Why are six of them simply named and listed in Schedule 1, and why is there merely an omnibus provision in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 for pre-accession treaties not even named and listed? Why has there been this departure from what is the usual, though I agree not the invariable, procedure, especially in a matter of such enormous importance? Was this a device intended to oust Parliament or is there an innocent explanation? Was it a device and method employed to reduce and limit the possibility of modification of any of those treaties if Parliament so resolved?
The Solicitor-General made an important statement to the House on this matter on 20th January this year, to which reference was made in last night's debate. It was no doubt intended by the Solicitor-General to reassure the House or perhaps to lull it into acceptance of the prospect that there would be plenty of scope for Amendment when the Bill ultimately came before the House. Referring to a speech by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir G. Foster), the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
My hon. and learned Friend is wrong, however, when he argues as a matter of principle that the legislation to implement a treaty allows no scope for amendment, because the House will be familiar with much legislation implementing other treaties of more or less importance in the past, all of which has been capable of amendment"—
then follow the words—
dependent upon the way in which the Government of the day chooses to implement the treaty obligations.
Was that not intended to give the impression of ample scope for amendment and modification of the obligations and restrictions resulting from the treaties which Parliament was going to be asked to approve? Or were the concluding words of the Solicitor-General

dependent upon the way in which the Government of the day chooses to implement the treaty obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 794.]—
intended as a somewhat cynical reservation? I think that we are entitled to be told.
One thing is clear. It is the Government, not the Table, who have chosen to present the Bill in the form in which it is now before the House. I have submitted that, whatever the Government's intentions may have been, they have not in fact succeeded, in the Bill that they have presented, in tying Parliament's hands, as the Chair's interpretation and construction of the Bill has so far suggested. However, if I am wrong in that and the Government have succeeded in stifling proper parliamentary discussion, then, either by incompetence or deliberate design, they have been guilty of grievously misleading the House on one of the most important issues that it has ever had to consider.

4.55 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): This debate, as it has developed, appears to put two rather strange contestants together in this House—first, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), a most eminent legal personality, who has put forward his Motion in what I should describe as his normal, extremely persuasive manner, and, secondly, myself, with no legal knowledge at all, but simply a belief that it is my duty, as Leader of the House, to speak on a Motion directly criticising the Chair. That is why I am speaking to the Motion this afternoon.
The honeyed tones of the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot, I feel, disguise from the House the words of the Motion, which you, Mr. Speaker, have read to us, because it simply states:
that the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 29th February to the Committee of the whole House sitting or the European Communities Bill gravely infringes the rights of the House".
That is a direct criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is the substantive Motion against the Chairman of Ways and Means—[Interruption.] —of which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) gave notice to the Committee yesterday. I am treating


it on that basis. But as the right hon and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is a get-out.

Mr. Whitelaw: There will be no getout, as I shall show the hon. Gentleman.
As the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South has introduced matters concerning the European Communities Bill, I think it only right, from my own point of view, to place on record the thoroughly reasonable arrangements which have been made for the House to debate the issue of Britain's joining the European Communities.
Last July—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was listened to in scrupulous silence. I hope that the same courtesy will be extended to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: Last July we had four days of debate—a total of 25 hours. In October, the issue of principle was debated for six days—a total of 55 hours. When the Bill was published I responded to requests for extra time before Second Reading to give the fullest opportunity to study the Bill. Three days were provided for Second Reading, the first time that three days—

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to be wholly irelevant in his reply to my right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Speaker: If I consider that the right hon. Gentleman is being irrelevant and out of order, I will so rule.

Mr. Whitelaw: That was the first time that three days had been provided for a Second Reading since 1949—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: —another 17 hours of debate.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will now, certainly.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House precisely the relevance of what he is now saying to the matter before us?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly. I am seeking to point out that anyone who suggests, as some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen did yesterday, that the Government have treated Parliament unreasonably on this issue, or that some gag has been put on discussion of the subject—[Interruption.] Yesterday hon. Gentlemen frankly said that a gag had been put on discussion in this House. I am perfectly entitled to answer that charge, and that is what I am doing. Nor do I accept that the Bill as a means of giving legal effect to last October's decision in principle to join European Communities denies this House its proper rights, or that my right hon. and hon. Friends in any way misled the House.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will deal further with the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he winds up the debate, but throughout the considerable discussion to which I have referred it has always been known that the Bill would have the objective of making the legislative changes necessary to provide for accession to the Communities. It makes this provision, as has been fully argued throughout the Second Reading debate and in other debates, in the proper constitutional form in accordance with the traditions of the House. The House, moreover, has already passed the Second Reading of the Bill in this form.
The House has the absolute right, over and above any Amendments which are selected, to discuss and, if it so desires, to reject each individual Clause on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The selection of Amendments cannot, and certainly does not, in any way deny that right to the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South talked about the implications of Clause 2 and said that he regarded it as unacceptable. Very well, if he does so, it is open to him and to the House to reject the Clause if they think fit in Committee. The argument of those who are opposed to the Bill is that they wish to delete all the Clauses. That is their purpose. They do not wish this country to join the European Communities and they do not wish the Bill to pass in any form.
That is the necessary background to the Motion which the House is debating


and on which it must come to a decision at the end of the debate.

Mr. Michael Foot: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to the immediate matter, it would assist the debate greatly if he would answer the specific question put by my right hon. and learned Friend. In the whole of the procedure of our discussions on the Bill which he has described, will he tell us when the House has had the opportunity of making a decision on the Treaty of Accession?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would have said in October—[Interruption.] The House in October with a majority of 112 voted in favour of the principle that Britain should join the E.E.C. That was the decision in principle in October. The Treaty of Accession does not require parliamentary authority. The parliamentary authority required is to give legal effect to the Treaty of Accession, when it is subsequently ratified. The Executive has to get the legal powers from the House. That is the purpose of the Bill and is exactly what the Bill is seeking to do.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was listened to in silence. I have given way a good deal. I will give way once more to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Morris: As I understand the last few words of the right hon. Gentleman, he is praying in aid that the debate in October in some ways approved the Treaty of Accession. Will he assist the House further and say to what degree were the details of the Treaty of Accession available in October?
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday:
It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties … If it were such a Bill, then, of course, every article of these treaties would be open to discussion …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.]

Mr. Whitelaw: As I understand the position it is perfectly simple. The Executive can sign the Treaty of Acces-

sion without specific parliamentary authority. Once it is signed it has to come to Parliament before ratification, and that is what, with the Bill, it is seeking to do.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Douglas Jay.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, does he not realise that he has directly contradicted what the Chairman of Ways and Means said, and that he is, therefore, directly criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that at all. I have made it perfectly clear, and the House perfectly well knows, what the Bill seeks to do.
I will now return, as I am entitled to, to the Motion before us. In our parliamentary history such Motions are, fortunately, rare, and it is rarer still for them to be pressed to a Division. The last such Motion was moved by my party in opposition in July, 1966. On that occasion some wise words were spoken with which I profoundly agree. The words were:
I doubt very much whether it was in the proportion of nine-tenths on that occasion. Even if it were, Mr. Gaitskell was never my model, either. What I am discussing is whether it is proper for the instrument of a Motion of censure of the Chairman of Ways and Means to be used when what the Opposition intend is an attack on the Government. If that process is used and if it becomes the practice, whatever may have been the unfortunate precedent; and if every time the Opposition wish to pursue an attack, where they have been defeated or wished to say more, by following it up with a Motion of censure on the Chair, we shall bring the conduct of the House into very great difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1966: Vol. 731, c. 458.]
I profoundly agree with that remark, and it was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale who in 1966 uttered those words.

Mr. Foot: We have before us a Motion criticising the decision of the Chair, and that is what we are debating. We may on a later occasion have to return to deal with the Government's conduct of this affair, and I trust we shall do so. We are keeping these matters absolutely distinct, and that is the relevance of the quotation read by the right hon. Gentleman.
What I said was wrong on that occasion, and what I still think is wrong would be to use an attack on the Chair as a cover for an attack on the Government. That is not what we are trying to do. We are criticising the Ruling given by the Chair, and if we wish to make an attack on the Government we shall return to it later.

Mr. Whitelaw: If that is what the hon. Gentleman really feels, it certainly was not the impression he gave on television last night.
Under our procedures, the Chairman of Ways and Means has the clear duty to apply the rules of order of the House in respect of Amendments for the Committee stage on the basis of the Bill which has been given a Second Reading. It is, moreover, an essential feature of our debates that the Chair has the absolute authority m the matter of Amendments, and that the Chair's Rulings must be acepted by the House.
If the Motion is to be understood as a means of making a protest or as a delaying tactic carefully planned as a means of obstructing the progress of the Bill, then I recognise it as a parliamentary stratagem. But if it is intended to press the Motion to a Division, then in those circumstances it can only be seen as an attack on the impartiality and integrity of the Chair.
I would find it rather ironic that those who are most jealous in their speeches about the rights of this House should appear in another way to be attacking the very traditions which they are so anxious to uphold. Frankly, I do not believe they are. I hope, therefore, that the Motion will not be pressed—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Naturally."]

Mr. Thorpe: I interrupt at this stage because the right hon. Gentleman seems to be drawing his remarks to a close. If I have intervened at an inconvenient moment, I apologise.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do not worry, Jeremy. You will get your knighthood.

Mr. Thorpe: Some pertinent questions were addressed to the Leader of the House by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), in particular as to why the Bill had been drafted in its present form. Whatever view one takes of this issue, that is a pertinent question. One wonders whether there were different ways in which the Bill could have been drafted which might have permitted of further amendment than is possible on the basis of the Chairman's Ruling. I urge the Leader of the House to deal with this specific point before concluding his remarks.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should jeer when I give way to the Leader of the Liberal Party. [Interruption.] I find that rather a surprising attitude for hon. Gentlemen opposite to take. I would have thought that they would want me to give way to the leader of a party in this House.
My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that I felt it was right for me to deal with the specific point of the challenge to the Chair. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is the proper person to deal with the legal points, and he will do that when he replies to the debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a number of legal points and it is only right and proper that my right hon. and learned Friend should give consideration to them, and then reply later.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I have given way sufficiently.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that I will not give way any more.

Mr. Lyon: Surely the right hon. Gentleman owes me one intervention?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it clear that I am drawing my remarks to a close. I have equally made it clear that the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South will be considered and properly answered by my right hon. and learned Friend, as is the normal practice in this House.
I draw my remarks to a close by returning once again to the Motion. Frankly, I hope it will not be pressed to a Division. If it is, then that can only be regarded as a direct challenge to the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and then, to borrow a phrase from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the very stones of this place will cry out against us [Interruption.] I go further and say that they will fall on us, bury us all beneath them—[Interruption.] —if we are not prepared to respect the authority of the Chair in this House.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order. It seems that you are the only person, Mr. Speaker, who can possibly resolve this problem. I understood that this House was the ultimate master of its rules of order and their interpretation. The Leader of the House, who is not an authority in this sense, has given us his interpretation—that the Chair on any occasion is the absolute authority. Indeed, he used the word "absolute."
I understand that just as the House of Lords is the master of its rules of order, so in this House we have delegated certain powers to our Chair. I have heard you and previous Speakers say on many occasions that the occupant of the Chair is the servant of the House. I take it, therefore, that from time to time we can appeal from a decision of the Chair, whoever is the occupant.
Nobody says that one is accusing a judge of partiality if one takes his decision to the court of appeal. I am not impugning, and never have impugned, the good faith or impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means. But it is wrong to say that one is doing that when one is only being human and saying to another human being, "I believe you to be mistaken on this particular matter of law or matter of order." Do you agree that that is a correct interpretation of the powers of this House through its Chair?

Mr. Speaker: I do not detect a point of order in what the hon. Gentleman has put to me. The House is now debating a question dealing with a Ruling of the Chair, and if any arguments are used in relation to that debate which are out of order, I shall rule them out of order.

However, the occupant of the Chair does not give, and never has given, guidance on, for example, constitutional law, and I do not intend to do so now. I shall be dealing with the Motion and ruling on the comments made on it as and when the situation arises.

Mr. David Steel: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House said that he wished to deal with only one aspect of the debate and that his right hon. and learned Friend would deal with the other aspects. Would it be in order for us to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to seek to catch your eye now so that he might complete the Government's argument before we proceed with the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Leader of the House has just made a deplorable and, coming from the Leader of this House, disgraceful speech. He utterly failed to answer any of the questions asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elywn Jones), let alone answer his arguments. After listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I am convinced that the Government's case must be even worse than any of us had imagined.
I therefore put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman which I trust he will answer immediately. First, does he say or does he not say that this is a Bill which will have the effect of approving the Treaty of Accession? Second, did the Government know when they drafted the Bill that it would have the effect on the selection of Amendments which, the Chairman told us yesterday, was its effect?

Mr. Whitelaw: To anwer the right hon. Gentleman's second question first, the Government of course have no possible knowledge of what the selection of Amendments might be by the Chair. It would be improper if that were ever to happen in this House. They certainly did not have and have not had such knowledge, and the right hon. Gentleman has been in this House, and was in Government, long enough to know that perfectly well.
On the first question the right hon. Gentleman asked, I thought I made the position absolutely clear. No parliamentary authority is required for the action of the Executive to sign the Treaty of Accession, and, therefore, no question arises of parliamentary approval for such an act. Thereafter, if the Government wish to ratify the treaty, when they have signed the Treaty of Accession, they must have legislative authority from this House so to do. I understand that this Bill is the means of getting the legislative authority which will enable them to ratify the treaty next year.

Mr. Jay: On this vital point the Leader of the House first contradicted the Chairman of Ways and Means, and now he has contradicted himself. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that this Bill would have the effect of approving the Treaty of Accession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. Not long after that he contradicted himself. I begin to wonder whether, in view of the performance of the Government, it would be right and proper for the House to continue with its consideration of the Bill at all.
However, I express my sympathy with the Chairman of Ways and Means for the impossible position in which the Government have placed him. As we can now see, the Government, by the dishonest ingenuity with which they have sought to gag parliamentary discussion of these vital matters, have placed the Chairman of Ways and Means in a position in which he cannot permit proper debate without a breach of what he regards as the rules of order. One thing, at any rate, is perfectly clear. If the Chairman was right in saying, as he did yesterday, that all the substantial Amendments were out of order, the Government are convicted of an outrageous attempt to limit proper debate in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman has entirely failed to answer the question I asked just now. Did the Government intend, when they drafted the Bill, to make Amendments of this kind impossible to discuss? The right hon. Gentleman's failure to answer that question shows that the Government's conduct of this whole affair has been even more dishonest than we realised.

Mr. Whitelaw: I thought I had made it perfectly clear that the Government had no such intention. No Government can know what Amendments would be moved. No Government can know what Amendments the Chair will judge in order. Therefore, I make that perfectly clear.

An Hon. Member: Brazen effrontery.

Mr. Jay: It is perfectly clear that, if the Government had no such intention, the right hon. Gentleman is again criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means, who said that this was the effect.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): May I perhaps, help the right hon. Gentleman by making it perfectly clear that the position is as I stated yesterday, quoting from what I said in the very lengthy debate on 20th January.
On the subject of Parliament's rights between signature and ratification, I made it perfectly clear that what we had to do was to bring our domestic law into harmony with our obligations under the Treaty. In effect, that is what the Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday as reported at column 269 of HANSARD. It is perfectly clear, and all this is really rather bogus.

Mr. Jay: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has walked in, I ask him whether he considers that this is a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or not.

Mr. Rippon: With respect, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) was wrong in talking about a statute of ratification. There is a certain convention when there is a treaty which involves cession of territory that the Bill or statute to approve ratification comes before Parliament, but there is not a process as such of a treaty's ratification. There is a process of parliamentary procedure of the appropriate kind between signature and ratification. That is what we explained we were going to do on 20th January, and that is what we have done. I explained this—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—during the Second Reading debate in opening the debate on the Bill I explained precisely what the purposes of the Bill were and that we have included in it absolutely everything that is necessary in order that


we can comply with our obligations under the treaties.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, Parliament has the opportunity—this follows from Lord Atkin's judgment as well—to oppose or reject the Bill, and it can do it at various stages of the Bill. But that is a very different matter, and if hon. Members study Lord Atkin's judgment they will see that that is all that it says.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman now tries a third, different interpretation. He now says not that this is a Bill to approve the treaties, or that it is not a Bill to approve the treaties; he says that no such Bill is possible. But that directly contradicts what the Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday. The Chairman of Ways and Means said:
It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties which are basic to membership of the Communities … If it were such a Bill …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.]
various consequences would follow.
It is perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means told the House that we could have had such a Bill, but this Bill was not a Bill of that kind. This afternoon, the Government are unable to say whether or not it is such a Bill, or when, if ever, the House would be asked to approve the Treaty of Accession. After the two speeches by right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, this seems to be an incredible situation of incompetence for which the Government are to blame.
We now find ourselves and the unfortunate Chairman of Ways and Means placed in an impossible position, which must be deeply disturbing to those of us who care about parliamentary Government. We have been placed in this situation by the successive deceptions practised by Ministers.
First, we have a unique Bill before us— unique by everyone's agreement—which makes unprecedented changes in our constitution. Second, the treaties have been signed with no mandate whatever from the public, that being directly contrary to the Prime Minister's undertaking to "negotiate, no more and no less". The country was, indeed, constantly assured, for instance at party

conferences, that it was only negotiation and not decisions which we were being asked to approve. Third, in the debate to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, which culminated in the Division on 28th October, essential information was withheld from Parliament. Again it is incredible that the Leader of the House should be so ignorant of the bare facts of this matter that he should suggest we approved on 28th October a treaty which was only signed on 22nd January. That requires explanation.
It was not known until the publication of the Treaty of Accession in January that the Government had been guilty of a clear breach of their pledges on New Zealand, on fisheries and on the sugar-producing countries.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Nonsense.

Mr. Jay: Therefore, the vote taken on 28th October was taken without proper information about some of the vital issues at stake.
Fourth, the treaty was signed on 22nd January before Parliament had debated it and, indeed—although the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to know it—before it had even been published. Next, promises were given on Second Reading, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) yesterday, that there would be full opportunity to amend the Bill. Now, on top of all that we are told that substantial amendment is not possible because the treaties have been signed and because of the way in which the Bill has been drawn. Sharp practice has been piled on sharp practice throughout the whole record, and this last attempt by the Government, coming at the end of such a record of deception, seems to me so outrageous that, unless the Chairman's decision can be revised, the only acceptable procedure must evidently be for the Bill to be withdrawn and replaced by some more reputable form of legislation.
The question remains, however, whether, even so, the Chairman's Ruling is correct. We had not a ghost of an answer to the points raised from either of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. No one suggests that the Chairman or the Clerks acted other than in good faith;


but it is possible for even them to be mistaken. The Chairman stated most emphatically yesterday that the question on most of the Amendments was not one of selection but one of order. But he did not tell us on what grounds they had been ruled out of order. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the grounds on which Amendments can be held to be inadmissible are laid down under a number of headings on pages 508 to 511 of "Erskine May", but it does not appear to me that most of the Amendments ruled out of order can properly be disqualified on any of the criteria given. If I am wrong, I should like an answer, but not the sort of rubbish to which we have listened from the Leader of the House this afternoon.
First, "Erskine May" says:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
But a number of the Amendments ruled out of order are to omit part of the Clause, and if there is any common sense left in these matters, and I suppose there is, surely an Amendment to omit something already in a Clause cannot be held to be outside the scope, or irrelevant to the subject matter, of the Bill. "Erskine May" goes on to say:
An amendment cannot be admitted, if it is governed by or dependent upon amendments which have already been negatived.
No Amendment has so far been negatived, and therefore they cannot be disqualified under that heading. "Erskine May" gives a third rule:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee …".
As the Committee has so far not agreed to anything, it is quite clear they cannot be ruled out under that heading. Amendments are inadmissible if
… they refer to, or are not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, of which notice has not been given …".
I do not think there is any suggestion that this is a reason for ruling these Amendments out of order.
The fifth rule states:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible.

Amendment No. 17 is an Amendment to substitute "1975" for "1972" in Clause 1. This has been ruled out of order, but surely it cannot be maintained that a postponement of the operation of the Bill amounts to the denial of the principle. I do not think the Leader of the House will tell us that.
Rule six says:
An amendment to leave out a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.
That clearly does not apply.
Under rule seven:
If an amendment would make the clause which it is proposed to amend unintelligible or ungrammatical, or if it is incoherent or inconsistent with the context of the bill, it is out of order ".
I do not think that some of the Amendments which move that the provisions of the treaty should not be carried out, for instance, without affirmative Resolution of the House, can possibly be said to make the Bill "ungrammatical or incoherent".

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill limited the scope of Amendments in that the House has therefore agreed the method by which the country should join the European Communities? Therefore, any Amendment which detracts from the totality of that joining and is out of harmony with the requirements of the treaties is necessarily out of order.

Mr. Jay: Evidently the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have said. I have pointed out that an Amendment to leave out a part of a Clause in a Bill cannot possibly be held to be contrary to the scope of the Bill. In "Erskine May" rule eight says:
Amendments which are vague, trifling, (c), or tendered in a spirit of mockery …
are out of order. I suppose one could say that any Amendment to this Bill might be tendered in a spirit of mockery, but I do not think that these important amendments, as the Chairman of Ways and Means himself described them, can possibly be ruled out on this ground.
Finally, rule 11 says:
An amendment is irrelevant and cannot be admitted if it seeks to delay the coming into force of a bill relating to England only, until a similar bill should have been passed for Scotland (h).


Clearly, the Bill does not refer to England only and that rule does not apply.
Even on the criterion of "Erskine May", therefore, there appears to be no good reason for ruling that these amendments are out of order. Therefore, I submit that on these tests most of these amendments ought to be held, even if we were not permitted some flexibility in view of the importance of the matter under consideration, as within the rules of the House.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: Would it help the right hon. Gentleman if I were to draw his attention to a passage in "Erskine May" on page 494, which defines the functions of a Committee on a Bill, which says:
A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Member cares to look at "Erskine May" he will find that it gives, from page 507 on, the detailed explanation which I have been reading of how those principles apply. Are we not to be told why the Amendments are out of order? We have not been told yet. Yesterday the Chairman merely quoted a few words of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, which, of course, has never been held to be binding in the matter of admissibility of Amendments. For these reasons I urge, in the interest of the Chairman of Ways and Means, that due time may now be taken to reconsider the admissibility of each of the Amendments.
If, however, it turns out that the Government have deliberately so drafted the Bill as to make serious debate and amendment impossible, that would be so gross a deception of the House and the country as to leave Ministers with no defensible course other than to withdraw the Bill and substitute a Bill which is compatible with our constitutional practice. Otherwise Ministers will have been condemned out of the mouth of the Chairman of Ways and Means of trying to make sweeping changes in our constitution by flagrantly unconstitutional methods.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. In Standing Committee

or in a Committee of the whole House the point is often reached in the proceedings when the presence of the Law Officers is urgently required and they are sent for through the Chair. We have the physical presence of the Solicitor-General, so I do not have to ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for him to be called to the Committee, but it is quite possible on past precedents of the Standing Committees. It is quite impossible for the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to answer legal points put to the Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) who opened the debate. May I therefore ask you that the Solicitor-General be brought into the debate to intervene and to reply to those points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think the hon. Member is well aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Throughout the points of order yesterday and the debate today we have heard two separate arguments, which are mutually contradictory, which have been put forward by the proposers of the substantive Motion. One is that there is something in the nature of the Bill which means that reasonable and sensible Amendments are inadmissible and the other is that the Chairman of Ways and Means has refused to allow certain Amendments which are reasonable. In other words, they say either that the Bill is so drawn that it is impossible for reasonable Amendments to be put down or that the Chairman of Ways and Means has made a wrong decision about these Amendments. Hon. Members opposite can have it one way or the other, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot suggest, on the one hand, that the Chairman of Ways and Means is wrong—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Which is it then?

Mr. Gummer: These two propositions have been put by those who wish the Motion to be passed. I suggest that they cannot make both propositions and say that they add up to an argument. They cannot say that they object to the Bill because they cannot amend it and


then object to the Chairman of Ways and Means because he stopped them making Amendments which they say are not possible. Both suggestions are bogus. They come from one source only—the people who wish to use every possible argument to delay the Bill.
Before we resort to all the legal arguments, the flourishing of "Erskine May" and so on, it is sensible for us to consider the reasons behind the Motion. Let us take first the proposition that the Bill is defective—that it is so wrongly drawn, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) suggested, that it inhibits reasonable and proper discussion—[Interruption.] I shall explain, if I am allowed to do so. The proposition is that the Bill has been drawn in such a way as to be very difficult to amend. But we have made a decision in principle, and if the Government had introduced a Bill that was much wider than the specific decision in principle they would certainly have been misusing that decision.
If it could have been said that the Bill was not the result of that decision in principle—that other matters are being brought in on the back of the majority of 112—the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his right hon. and hon. Friends would immediately have said that the Government were misleading the House. The Government have done precisely what it is right for a Government to do, which is so to frame a Bill that it contains only that which is necessarily consequent upon wishing the ends, and following the decision in principle. If they had added to the Bill a whole range of matters that the Opposition would like, which could be amended in the way many people would like, they would have been guilty of trying to push through the House a Bill wider in scope than that which was needed to carry out the decision in principle.
The decision in principle, made by a very large majority, has a great deal of importance, an importance the Opposition would do well to remember. Not just hon. Members but members of the general public are particularly perturbed by the sight of people who can will the ends but refuse to will the means, and the means are contained in this Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has

drifted a long way from his original point, Which is what I want to answer. He claims that there is an inconsistency between arguing that the Government have done something wrong in framing the Bill in such a way that some Amendments are out of order and arguing that the Chairman of Ways and Means is wrong in ruling some Amendments out of order. Does he not understand that many Amendments are in question, and that it is perfectly credible that some may properly be out of order because of the way in which the Bill has been drawn and that many others are properly in order but that the Chairman of Ways and Means has improperly ruled them out of order? That makes the criticisms perfectly consistent.

Mr. Gummer: That would certainly make the criticisms perfectly consistent—if that had been the argument of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, but it was not. His argument was, first that all the Amendments are admissible and, secondly, that the Government have framed a Bill that is unacceptable because the Amendments were not accepted.

Mr. Jay: That was not my argument. My argument was that the Chairman of Ways and Means told us yesterday that the Government had so drafted the Bill as to make the Amendments out of order. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly deny that. Secondly—and perfectly consistent with that argument—I said that in my view, in the light of "Erskine May", many of the Amendments are in order in spite of the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman has precisely made the point. At the end of his speech, in his third peroration, however, he made it very clear that in his view the Government had produced a defective Bill, because it could not be amended in the way in which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends wanted to amend it. But earlier in his speech he said that it could be amended in a number of ways, which he went through. It is odd that when he was trying to inform the House the right hon. Gentleman should have ignored the first section of "Erskine May", which governs all the subsections he read out. Under the heading
Functions of a Committee on a Bill


on page 494, "Erskine May" says quite clearly:
… the general powers of a committee and the limitations by which it is bound should be clearly borne in mind.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want to bear them in mind clearly.
(1) A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.

Mr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has intervened in my speech at length, and I wish to continue on this point.
The House made a decision of principle. To carry out that decision, it was right for the Government to produce a very narrowly-defined Bill, because to propose anything further would have been dishonest, in that it would wish means other than those necessary to achieve the ends decided upon in that decision of principle. That having been done, and the Bill having been given its Second Reading, the Committee is bound by the principle that the Bill can be amended only in a way that is not generally destructive of the principle of the Bill as decided.
Therefore, we must look very carefully at the motives behind the Motion. We heard a great deal about the subject under points of order, made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in a charming manner, about the importance of Parliament and the danger to Parliament if we continue with the Bill. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put that argument very clearly. But I wonder whether the dangers to Parliament are where he sees them. Are they in the presentation of the Bill and its discussion within the ambit suggested by both the Government and a number of Opposition Members or are they to be found in those people who are prepared to use Parliament for purposes outside the real end of Parliament

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I have nearly finished. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to speak later.
We are faced with a major decision of this century. We are considering a vitally

important matter, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has made clear. In the short time that I have been a Member we have discussed it many times, and it was discussed in the House many times before that. We then made a decision of principle and gave a Second Reading to a Bill directly and narrowly confined to the necessary results of that decision. What happened? Parliament was abused. The decision was treated by one side of the House not as the great matter of our history that it is, not as the great decision for our future, but as a means to vote against the Government not on the Bill but on a whole series of other matters.
So strong is the determination of those who want to destroy the Bill that they are even prepared to use methods most of us would feel extremely unhappy about. I cannot believe that any Member is happy that a major issue—perhaps the major issue since the war—should have ceased to be a non-party political matter, a matter of great belief and concern, and should have become the basis for party political manoeuvrings, and now the basis for manoeuvrings against the Chair.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: The speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer) had every virtue except that of directing his mind to the subject matter of the motion. He talked about drawing the Bill narrowly or widely and of going outside the mandate. It is precisely because in the Bill the Treaty of Accession is mentioned and because the E.E.C. and European Coal and Steel Community are defined in the way they are that these Amendments have been framed. Therefore, any criticisms he has to make of the Bill and the Amendments on that ground are completely wide of the mark.
But, of course, what the hon. Gentleman really wanted to do was to indulge in an orgy of criticism on a purely nonpolitical point, as he chose to call it. Does he not remember the Committee stage of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, and the part which his right hon. and hon. Friends played then? One after the other they put themselves forward as great patriots. They tried by Amendment after Amendment day in and day out to kill the Bill or cripple it gravely,


and they did it without criticism from their colleagues, many of whom are now making loud noises about constitutionalism.
It is the Solicitor-General who must answer for this Bill. In a very real sense his personal honour is involved. He and the Parliamentary draftsmen bid fair to becoming the holders of the most hated names in parliamentary history. [Laughter.] I hear the fairy sounds of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) laughing, but the fact is that no one will have debased parliamentary institutions so much as the man who has deliberately drawn the Bill in such a way without consideration of the main treaties which are the subject of our accession so that we cannot even discuss them or consider them in detail. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman now pretends, this is what he said on 20th January, talking of the Treaty of Accession:
The next stage of consideration that will be appropriate is the study of the legislative provisions needed to give effect to the treaties alongside those treaties themselves. The treaties in isolation are as suitable for scrutiny by the House as the treaties in conjunction with the legislation; they are to be taken and studied alongside each other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th January. 1972; Vol. 829, c. 796.]
Now we have a Bill in which the treaties and the legislation are together, but we are told by the Government, contrary to what the Solicitor-General said, that now is not the time to discuss the treaties.
There are two possible explanations of this. Either the hon. and learned Gentleman was in ignorance, which is difficult to accept as he is credited with being one of the few minor successes of the Government, or he gave this vague assurance to the House well knowing that there were caveats which he did not reveal and well knowing that if we relied on his assurance we would be falling into a trap. In other words, he misled the House. That might be fine business if one is selling horses at a market but it is not the way we expect the Solicitor-General of the United Kingdom to behave in the Mother of Parliaments.
If the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means is correct, it gravely weakens the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation. Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) referred to the Amendments

as "wrecking Amendments", but many of them are nothing of the kind. Amendment No. 24 and Amendment No. 26 deal with the questions of capital movement and fisheries, proposing a special procedure which this House should follow. That is properly within the "nuts and bolts" construction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and, therefore, in ruling out of order all these Amendments he is quite wrong.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman ever asked any international lawyer—for example, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who is a very distinguished constitutional lawyer—or a judge about this? He would be told categorically what was said by my hon. and learned Friend yesterday—that we cannot amend any one of the six treaties in the Schedule. If the hon. Gentleman is a member of any club—a working men's club or any other—what would he think if people outside, in another club, tried to change the rules of his club? That is a direct analogy.

Mr. John: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has connected me with working men's clubs. But I do not need any patronising from him. I studied law. I am by profession a lawyer. Perhaps he will do me the honour of reading Professor Schwarzenberger on international law. He might look up page 442 of the volume, which he can get from the Library. Professor Schwarzenberger points out that States are able to have reservations about treaties. I cite the hon. Gentleman one example.
The Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1960, was an international treaty signed by this country. It was brought into our law by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1964, which was a Private Member's Measure, with Government backing. It brought the convention into British law except for Part VIII, which dealt with the safety of nuclear vessels. In other words, Britain did not fully adopt the convention but adopted an amended form by leaving out one of its chapters. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett, told the House that the Government had advised the hon. Member who had brought in the Bill, as it was then, not to include that chapter for reasons


thought good at the time. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies) is therefore completely wrong when he says that we must swallow the whole camel, humps and all, of a Bill to enact the substance of treaties.

Mr. Ernie Money: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a fundamental difference between the kind of treaty he has been talking about and the reservations which can exist in the sense that a contracting party can contract to only that part he chooses and a treaty brought before this House for municipal approval so that it may be ratified? Surely as a lawyer he sees that those are two entirely different things?

Mr. John: If that is right, then Professor Schwarzenberger, who is one of the greatest authorities on international law in this country, does not agree with the hon. Gentleman. What the professor says of such a situation is that where a party has reservations about a treaty, then the validity of those reservations depends upon the attitude of the other party. Relating it to the circumstances of this treaty, if we were to move an Amendment to it the Government would have to go back and negotiate with the other signatories to see whether that Amendment was acceptable to them. But the Government cannot, as they now seek to do, pre-empt the attitude of the other signatories. It is perfectly possible for the British Parliament in its enacting legislation to make any Amendments to the treaty which it desires. I would say that it is beyond peradventure that it is the duty and right of Parliament.
After all, the Committee stage on any Bill is a time for scrutinising in detail, for the good of the legislative programme, the legislation which is brought before the Committee. If that is so generally how much more is it the case with a Bill of such fundamental importance as this? We have the duty to seek beneath the blanket words "any other treaty". We have the right to examine treaties which have never been examined in this House. It is because I believe that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong in ruling out of order Amendments which may have been inconvenient but which were certainly not directed at wrecking the Bill that I contend this Motion ought

to be supported. If the Chairman was right when he said that these Amendments were out of order, then the point comes back to the Government. They have brought Parliament into far greater disrepute than any supposed incidents of violence. On so fundamental an issue they will have shut out intelligent consideration and discussion of matters which are not only of importance to the present Parliament but important to future Parliaments.

Mr. David Waddington: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if the will of Parliament can be given effect to by a Bill of 12 Clauses it would be ridiculous for the Government to introduce a Bill of 130 Clauses?

Mr. John: All that that intervention has done is to enable me to sit down for a couple of seconds. The Government must enact legislation in this House in a form which enables Parliament to give it frank and open scrutiny. If it is able to be brought into a small compass, then the proper place to scrutinise that in detail is in Committee. What we are trying to do through these Amendments and what we have been precluded from doing is carrying out this detailed consideration.
We have a duty to ourselves and to the Parliament to which we are elected. We have a wider duty than that—a duty to the British people. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West talked about assenting to the principle of the Bill. It is one thing to assent to the principle of a Bill and another thing to maintain that assent in view of the hideous nature of the Bill before us. Our task is to scrutinise and approve where possible.
I hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will reverse or reconsider his decision. If he does not, then I repeat that the personal honour of the Solicitor-General is involved here and it is he who must answer instead of us having to put up with what I can only describe as the supercilious arrogance of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I mean no disrespect to hon. Members who have taken part in the exchanges just now when I say that this is not really a lawyers' occasion


but a House of Commons occasion. I say at the outset that no hon. Member who was present at our Sitting yesterday could possibly be under the misapprehension that the intention of the Motion on the Order Paper or of anyone who supports it is to place a personal censure upon the occupant of the Chair or, indeed, to censure the Chair as the Chair.
What we are concerned with in this debate is to find a solution to what not only the Opposition but a great many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have felt to be an intolerable position in which the House has been placed by the quite unprecedented character of the nature of accession to the European Community and of this legislation interacting with the normal rules and procedures of the House. It is a truism that the Chair—the Chair of the House and the Chair of the House in Committee—is the servant of the House, and if the House is unduly constricted by even the most correct interpretation of the rules of order the House has it in its own hands to point out the way in which it may be assisted.
I will therefore be brief in indicating the grounds on which it appears to me that the Chair could have come to a different conclusion in the selection of Amendments yesterday. The Chair relied expressly not upon the Bill or its Long Title but upon the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. It was the words of the Memorandum which the Chairman quoted as the basis for his Ruling. It is perfectly true that the Memorandum is explicit in its description of the purposes of the Bill as being 
to comply with the obligations entailed by membership of
the three Communities there set out
and to exercise the rights of membership ".
It appears however that the Bill itself—in particular, the Long Title, which is normally taken as indicating the scope of a Bill—is deliberately drawn much more widely and in a way calculated to give greater freedom to the Committee in considering Amendments than might have otherwise been the case. The Long Title says that the purpose of the Bill is:
To make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom.
There are many ways in which that enlargement could have taken place so as to include the United Kingdom. That is

what the negotiations have been about in the last 18 months and at various times in the last 10 or 11 years. The scope of the Bill quite deliberately does not preclude the Committee from offering the view that the adherence of this country to the European Communities could have been secured, and ought to be secured, upon different terms and other conditions.
I am fortified in my contention that the Bill itself is not as restricted as was the view taken of it by the Chairman by the assertion of the Chair itself that
all these matters can be discussed in the debate on the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 294.]
The contention, as I understand it, which underlies this interpretation, is that the treaties, and in particular the Treaty of Accession, must be taken as a whole; to use a colloquial expression which has featured in these debates, that we cannot unpack the parcel and look at each item separately, with a view perhaps to rejecting or accepting or, more likely, to attaching conditions. But if it is allowable during the Committee stage to propose the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, then it must be conceivable that the decision of the Committee should be in the negative—that the Clause could not stand part of the Bill. The immediate consequence, of course, of any Clause—even, I imagine, the least important Clause of this Bill—being disallowed by the Committee would be that there would be an immediate conflict set up with the terms of the Treaty of Accession.
I hope, therefore, that upon reconsideration it will be found that the Bill in itself does not compel the very narrow and—no doubt, in the light of precedents—accurate interpretation which the Chair and the Chair's advisers until today thought it right to offer.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I take it that in applying his able mind to this my right hon. Friend is not contending that the House is entitled to amend these treaties entered into by the other parties. He must recognise that we cannot barge in and proceed to amend an existing treaty in this House; such amendments can be made only by the members of that club, later.

Mr. Powell: I understand, of course, that this House cannot amend a treaty. Treaties are not the material which is


put before this House. The material which is put before this House is a Bill to do certain things affecting the law of this country. What I say is that this House can and ought to be free to attach to such legislation such conditions as it thinks fit; that it is entitled to say, "Here is a Bill which is intended to produce certain effects, but upon consideration we do not think that the Bill should be passed, or that those effects should be allowed, except with certain modifications and conditions and procedures."

Mr. Money: Surely my right hon. Friend—who said at the beginning that this was not a lawyer's debate but has nevertheless been arguing on a legal basis—sees that there is a point of considerable substance here. Where a treaty has been put before the House, the House has the alternative only of accepting or rejecting that treaty—and to amend the treaty is in fact to do the latter.

Mr. Powell: I repeat that there is no question of this House amending or being able to amend a treaty, and once again I assert that this House is entitled to attach certain conditions to the consent which is sought from it for certain changes in the law, though certain consequences for the Government in their relations with their treaty partners may follow from this House doing that.

Mr. R. T. Paget: On the question of this House's right to amend a treaty—it can do so if the proposed legislation seeks to make that treaty part of the law of England. I have examples of a number of occasions on which it has done so.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the major point to which I was coming next will in part be a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It is quite clear, if one looks back over the earlier proceedings on this matter in the House, that many hon. Members, including the Government themselves, genuinely believed that in the legislative procedures following the signature of the treaty the major matters involved in that treaty would be able to be considered, and considered specifically, by the House, and I cannot believe that anyone would sug-

gest that the intention was that these should be merely considered, without the House having the possibility or the right to come to some conclusion or make some qualification of them.
For example, on the matter of fisheries—the agreement on which was reached, as will be recalled, after the rest of the agreement, only in December—my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, replying to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a specific opportunity for debate and not just, as he said, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, said:
the agreements we have reached in Brussels over the past week-end,"—
that was the agreement on fisheries in particular—
like all the others we have reached, are all subject to legislation which will be required after the signing of the Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol 827, c. 63.]
I just do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend said that, in response to the interrogation of the Leader of the Opposition, knowing or believing that there would be no opportunity in the course of the legislation for that subject to be considered, and that Amendments which sought not to overturn that agreement but to attach some qualification or condition to its implementation, would not be in order.

Mr. Rippon: Might I assure my right hon. Friend that I never gave any indication that I thought it would be possible to amend the treaties themselves, but of course referred to the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I am most anxious not even to allow the misinterpretation of anything which I say in the sense that my hon. or right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench allowed impressions to take root which they themselves did not share; but I have to say to my right hon. and learned Friend that if, when a debate on a subject is called for, he gives the reply that these agreements, like the rest,
are all subject to legislation which will be required after the signing of the Treaty
It is difficult to imagine that all he was referring to was the Second Reading debate upon a Bill. However, much more specific and much more important is the


witness of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General; for if there is one of my hon. or right hon. Friends on the Treasury bench of whom I would and it impossible to believe that he would mislead the House, it is my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. There was a very important passage, only part of which was quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Motion, in the Solicitor-General's speech on 20th January, which went to the heart of the matter before the House, because it raised the question of the amendment of important matters. In the passage after that which has been quoted earlier in the debate, my hon. and learned Friend said:
The passage of that legislation"—
that is, the Bill now before the House—
is necessary before the Crown may proceed to ratification
Then he went on with these significant words:
and because the passage of that legislation is necessary, that will be the time to debate the important questions … including those on sovereignty … in order to see how far the Government are then carrying out the intentions foreshadowed in the 1967 White Paper."—
that is the whole scope of the agreements now embodied in the Treaty of Brussels and the associated documents—
That is the appropriate method and the proper time to enable Parliament to consider and if it pleases approve and implement the consequences of the Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 794.]
I simply do not believe that my hon. and learned Friend, in referring to
the important questions, including that of sovereignty",
was restricting himself to what have been called the "nuts and bolts" of the legislation.
My hon. and learned Friend's reference to the 1967 White Paper makes that clear. What he was saying to the House, and what the House understood him to be saying, was that the important matters which arose in the Treaty, which were the subject of negotiation, would be able to be discussed and, if the House agreed to them, approved in connection with the legislation. The way in which the House considers important questions, and decides whether or not to approve them, in the course of legislation, is by taking

those matters separately in Committee, debating them, and accepting or rejecting Amendments which bear upon them.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend then suddenly interpolated the word "Amendments". He knows very well, does he not, that there is every opportunity—not a word of my right hon. and learned Friend is untrue there—to have a debate on every Clause for as many hours as the House likes, to say "Aye" or "No" whether it is a rotten treaty? It was totally unfair of my right hon. Friend to interpolate the word "Amendments". There are many occasions when Bills pass through unamended in Committee with long debates on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". That was a thoroughly dishonest intervention.

Mr. Powell: I do not intend to seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that my hon. Friend spoke a little at random—especially as the passage from which I quoted specifically related to the capability of amendment. If he will examine the column from which I was quoting he will find that amendment was the context of the remark of my hon. and learned Friend. Incidentally, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was speaking for the Leader of the House in his assurances about the future business of the House and the time available for debates on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Once again, I simply do not see how, except as an insult to the House, the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, can be put and debated if it is held that the House cannot what is miscalled "amend the Treaty" by the manner in which it handles this Bill.
I believe that the House has—inadvertently and unintentionally—been placed in a humiliating position. We have before us legislation which, if it passes, is intended to remove permanently from this House its exclusive power in future to make the law of this country and to tax the people of this country, and to limit its ability to call the Executive to account. That is implicit as has been recognised in these debates, in the action which we are invited to take.
It is monstrous that, when we are being asked to do that, we should be told at


the same time, "And you are also prevented from debating, discussing, examining in detail, let alone amending, the terms and conditions upon which your sovereignty is thus to be given up. You are presented with a Bill which will permanently limit the sovereignty of this House, but the terms of which, and the contents of the Treaty by which it has been done, are substantially withdrawn from your examination." I cannot believe that that is a humiliation to which this House will submit.
Whatever is the outcome of this debate, whether or not we proceed to a Division, and whatever the result of it will be, I address this appeal, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in particular. I hope that both the Government and, with respect, the Chair will take time after the end of this debate to consider it, to consider what has been said, to consider the feeling which has been expressed in different parts of the House and to reflect maturely upon what, in consequence of it, they ought to do—

Mr. Gorst: Get on with the Bill.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps what my hon. Friend has interjected illustrates the importance of reflection at this stage. Hon. Members know that even on a Motion of this sort it is not the custom of the House to decide the matter one way or the other by a Division. We all know that we take account afterwards of what has happened and of what has been said in the debate; but for that, we have to have time. I venture respectfully to express the hope that time will be found.
Finally, I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends who differ from the point of view of myself and others on the advisability of British membership of the Community. In this Motion that principle is not involved. We are not here debating or in any way prejudicing that fundamental question. This is a question for the House of Commons, a question of the rights of the House of Commons and the liberties of the House of Commons, which should concern as much those who are in favour of British entry as those who are opposed to it.
I say that not as a generality, but because, if this thing ever appears to have been done without the fullest possible debate—not only of the nuts and

bolts but of the important matters—in this House, which is the people's House, then the validity of what is done—something which must be of great concern to all—will be gravely impugned.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Government had and could have no idea of the interpretation which would be put upon the rules of order in the light of the Bill. I believe that. I am sure that that is so. I believe that the Government were not much less surprised and dismayed by that Ruling than many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Therefore, there can be no discredit to the Government, any more than to the Chair, in reconsidering this matter and taking into account the deep feelings of this House about its rights.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I echo the last words of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I and my colleagues very much agree that this is primarily a House of Commons matter and not a matter of debate or acrimony between the political parties, nor even between those who take opposing views on the principle of whether or not we should enter the European Economic Community.
I agree with many of the remarks directed against individual members of the Government. In the last few weeks this Government, to put it mildly, have seemed accident prone. It is not so much their policy or their integrity which has been called into question as their competence.
What we ought to be debating today, it we have to take a day off to discuss the procedure on this legislation, is the Government's competence in the handling of the legislation. Hon. Members who have quoted various statements made by the Solicitor-General, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right to make a complaint that the House was misled as to the nature and scope of the debate which could take place on this legislation. I believe that wrongful assurances were given by Ministers to the House. But this Motion is not about the honour of the Solicitor-General. It is not about the conduct of the Leader of the House,


It is not about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is about the conduct and Ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Many hon. Members who have made critical speeches and indicated that they intend to support the Motion have used the phrase "if the Chairman was right". If any hon. Member can use that phrase in his speech in this debate he would appear to enter some doubt as to whether the Chairman was right or wrong. In that situation I cannot see how any hon. Member can go into the Lobby and vote for a Motion critical of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member goes right to the root of my personal dilemma in this matter because I understand that both Front Benches are agreed that this is a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession to the Communities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On that basis this is in direct conflict with what the Chairman of Ways and Means said last night. If that is the case, although I find it an intolerable situation, I have nevertheless come to the conclusion that we must censure the Chairman of Ways and Means if only to see that the House changes that decision so that Amendments can be put down. I cannot see any other way out of the dilemma. I should be grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) for his assistance.

Mr. Steel: I think the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has taken the opportunity to make his intervention in the middle of mine. I do not complain about that, but I share some of his difficulties. That is why we suggested that we should have had the full Government case on the handling of the legislation at the beginning of the debate and that it was wrong to open the debate on the narrow point about the propriety of the Chair. The full Government case should have been put at the beginning. I sympathise with the hon. Member for York on this, and it is a point upon which we can legitimately criticise the Government. If the hon. Member is in that dilemma, as I think we all are, it would be entirely wrong to say that the only method open to us of criticising the Government is to put forward a Motion criticising the Ruling of the Chair and

to use that as a substantive Motion when attempting to criticise the Government. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in what he said on that.

Mr. Whitelaw: I quite accept that the House might think that I was the wrong person to open the debate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is making a perfectly good point, which I think I made, that frankly, the Motion, whether one agrees with it or not, in fact criticises the Chairman of Ways and Means. To that simple point as Leader of the House I directed my views. If I said anything wrong on the other points, which I do not think I did, the Chancellor of the Duchy will set out that side of the case. As I think was perfectly proper, I directed myself to the narrow point which I thought the proper thing for the Leader of the House to do.

Mr. Steel: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think it was the proper thing to do. It would have been better to have the full case of the Government at the beginning of the debate and not to be used in the winding up speech at the end by the Government.
The other objection I have is that this Motion says
a full new selection of Amendments should be proposed.
I do not think that we can do this. I do not think we can give instructions to the Chair to rule in order that which is not in order. We may well dispute whether the Chairman is right or wrong and whether these Amendments are in order or not, but we cannot say that, while we accept that this is a narrow Bill, nevertheless we instruct the Chair to allow Amendments which the Chair has ruled out of order. I believe there is a legitimate complaint which can be made against the Government's handling of this legislation, but I do not believe that it is a complaint which can be made against the Chair.
We on this bench, at any rate, recognise that our lack of ability to amend previous agreements made by members of the Community from the time of the founding of the different Communities onwards is part of the price which we have to pay for being a late entrant to the Common Market. I listened to the right


hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) with great interest, but, however much one may argue that it is possible in law to amend certain treaties and however right he may be in his argument on law, he is certainly wrong in actual political practice. We could not conduct our entry on that basis. The House was invited in October specifically to make up its mind on whether or not we wished to enter the European Economic Community on the terms obtained at that point.
What every hon. Member had to decide then was whether we were prepared to accept the package and wanted to go into the Community on the basis of the terms then negotiated, not on the basis, after having given approval, that we could amend those terms. Many hon. Members took the view that we should go in. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) took a different view, that we should not accept the package. We knew what we were voting for, and he knew what he was voting against. It is too late in the day to say that we ought to have an opportunity to amend particular provisions which were made before that debate.
I made the point in October that the Government at all stages ought to have been a great deal more frank with the House and the country about the full implications of entry. We made this criticism at the time of the great public debate, that the public were not being given full information and that some hon. Members appeared to be misled about the full scope of the legislation and opportunities for amendment which, clearly, would not be possible later.
While we shall not join in the censure on the Chairman, we wish to express our reservation about the way in which the matter has been handled by the Government.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will forgive me for not taking up his argument. I do that partly for reasons of prudence as I do not wish to say anything which would cause him to change the resolution he has formed tonight not to support this Motion of censure.

Mr. Steel: Very wise.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should point out that this is a case where silence does not mean consent. It would be very unwise, however, for any hon. Member on the Government side of the House to say anything critical of any hon. Member of the Liberal Party.
When one comes to Members of one's own party one is, of course, freer. If I direct my remarks primarily to the very important contribution which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) I do so knowing that I incur no risk of alienating him from support of this Bill.
The first point that was made by my right hon. Friend was that this was a House of Commons occasion, not a legal occasion. I cannot agree with that. It is both a House of Commons occasion and a legal one—and it must be, because one cannot separate the function of legislation from the functions of the House of Commons. We cannot separate the detailed rules governing the functioning of legislation in this House from general questions of liberty and parliamentary principles. We have no written constitution, but we have procedure. Procedure does for us in this country what a written constitution does for the liberties of citizens in other countries. Therefore, it is extremely important that the procedures of the House should be followed on every occasion, even on occasion such as this, because the procedures of the House are the ultimate safeguards of our liberty.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that this was not a personal censure of the Chairman of Ways and Means and added that, indeed, it was not a censure at all. Here again I would agree with the part but dissent from the whole. If this Motion is a personal censure of the Chairman of Ways and Means, it is the oddest form of personal censure anybody in this House can ever have heard. The air has been replete with tributes to the moral character of the Chairman of Ways and Means, tributes which he certainly has not solicited but which have been showered on his head from all sides. With those references, should he ever decide to leave this House any occupation would be open to him.
If a personal attack was being made on the Chairman of Ways and Means, it would be strange indeed to ask the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) to move the Motion of censure because if there is one Member of this House who has a reputation for being both courtly and courteous it is the right hon. Gentleman.
It is when we come to the question of the substantive censure that I part company with my right hon. Friend. Personal it may not be, but censure it must be if words are to mean anything.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: When I finish this part of my remarks I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his library, but now I continue: censure it must be.
What this Motion does is to challenge the judgment of the occupant of the Chair on what by universal agreement is one of the most important Bills which have come before the House. What the Motion is saying is that in this most important matter a radically erroneous judgment has been made by the occupant of the Chair. That must be a censure. Furthermore, we must be taken to intend the natural consequences of our acts.
This is a substantive Motion. What will be the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means if this Motion is passed tonight? He will have to resign. The resignations may go further since others than the Chairman are involved. Therefore, one cannot say that this is not a Motion of censure. It is a substantive Motion of censure against the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Paget: Does a barrister when he signs a notice of appeal from a judge propose a vote of censure on the judge, and does that judge have to resign because that appeal is allowed? Surely the words of the Motion do not impugn the discretion of the Chair but relate to the question whether the correct legal advice was given to him.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must address that question—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is never "right" but always "learned".

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was anticipating that the hon. Member's career was not yet over. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is."] No—he may get a peerage over Rhodesia. [Laughter.] The question of what a barrister would think he was doing in a court matter is not a question to be addressed to me. It must be addressed to one of my hon. and learned Friends since they practise at the Bar and I am an academic lawyer.
I pass on to the third point which was made by my right hon. Friend. He said that if the House can reject a Clause of a Bill which would fundamentally alter the effects of the treaty in this country, it must be able to consider any Amendment which rejects only part of that Clause. That is his thesis. As with so many of my right hon. Friend's theses, if one accepts the principle alone one is lost because one is driven through to ineluctable conclusions. But there is always an isolation that takes place in my right hon. Friend's thinking and argument. He takes one principle out of a situation in which three or four principles operate, ignores the other three, and grounds his conclusions on that one principle. The principle he has ignored governs the matter of procedure, which is ultimately a principle of fundamental constitutional importance. He has ignored the fact that there are rules in this House governing the admissibility of Amendments.
The passage of "Erskine May" which has already been quoted by my other hon. Friends—from my copy, I may say, but I am always ready to oblige—is fundamental to this discussion. It says:
A committee is bound by the decision of the House given on second reading in favour of the principle of the bill and should not therefore amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
That is the principle which operates to neutralise the principle put forward by my right hon. Friend, and I call it in aid, because without that principle his argument could not be answered.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is quoting from page 494 of "Erskine May". Does he not agree that above that passage it says:
The rules as to the admissibility of amendments are explained in detail on pages 507–10 below, but the general powers of a committee are …


and so on. He then quoted from the general powers. Does he not think that the provisions in detail over some five pages of "Erskine May" should be relied upon rather than the general implications which he has quoted in contrast to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) who quoted the detailed provisions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was quoting the universal, whereas the hon. Gentleman is referring me to the particulars. But all the particulars are governed by the universal principle. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point has no validity and the point of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is overruled by the general principle involved.

Mr. Michael Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has any evidence to show that that is the basis on which the Chairman of Ways and Means reached his decision, because indications which have been given to many of us, and indeed the implications of what has been said in many speeches, are to the opposite effect. The hon. Gentleman may think that is a sufficient ground for ruling out the Amendments, but that is not what the Chairman of Ways and Means has contended.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Chairman of Ways and Means has made his position clear in the Ruling which he has given—

Mr. George Cunningham: No, he has not.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, he has. He has given some reasons. I cannot say whether the considerations which I have brought forward were those which dominated the mind of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I have no means of answering that question. I was producing my point in answer to a point which had been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Powell: I do not dispute that the rules governing Amendments may well be different from the rules governing the putting of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Therefore, there can be no argument on a point of order from one to the other. The point to which I was addressing myself was that,

if the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" can be put and be negatived, there is nothing in the nature of the treaties or their acceptance by this country or the validation of that by this legislation which prevents the amendment or the rejection of parts of those treaties by way of amendment. That was my point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My point was a parallel one, which is that we cannot amend these matters under the rules of this House.

Hon. Members: Pass on.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am passing on. I am not passing over. In this exchange between myself and my right hon. Friend, we have made our respective positions clear. Posterity must judge between us.
I pass on to the fourth point which was made by my right hon. Friend. This was an extremely important one. As I understood it, he was accusing both my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of misleading the House. That was the gravamen of his charge. My right hon. Friend quoted from the debate of 20th January and from a previous debate in an effort to substantiate his charge. I do not think that any fair-minded person could possibly draw the conclusion that my right hon. Friend did from the evidence that he quoted because, while my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General certainly was speaking in the context of amendment of the Bill, he never suggested that any and every kind of Amendment would be admissible. Nothing was said about that in his speech. He said that this Bill is open to amendment, as it is, but, of course, only to amendment according to the procedures of this House. There is nothing in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to deny that principle.
The final point made by my right hon. Friend was that it was a humiliation for this House to be unable to amend legislation implementing a treaty. He said that that was an intolerable humiliation for Parliament. If that is so, it is a humiliation which has been with us for a very long time. The treaty-making power has always been a power of the Crown and therefore, of the Executive


and not a power of this House. That is our constitutional law, and it is supported by every constitutional authority. Where this House comes in is that, if a treaty involves a conflict with our municipal law, Parliament must change the law or we are left in a situation of conflict of laws. That is where the power of this House comes in. Therefore, the rôle of this Bill is a consequential one. It has to implement those changes—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It does not have to.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am using the expression colloquially. Its function is to make those changes in municipal law which have to be made to avoid conflict—

Mr. John Mendelson: If the House wishes.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course, if the House wishes. Supposing that the House does not do this. What is the position of the treaty? The treaty is not invalidated, but we are in a position of conflict where the rule of international law governing treaties says one thing and the rules of domestic law in this country say another.
It may be, as a matter of practice, that in such a situation we could not ratify, but the legal position is not affected because ratification is not a function of this House. It is incorrect to say that this is a ratifying Measure. It is not. It may be an enabling Statute. It may have practical consequences. But ratification is for the Crown. It is not for Parliament.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Although the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the treaty remains a treaty, he should qualify that and say that it remains a treaty between State and State. It does not have any legal and valid effect as between the State and the citizens of this country.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying so much more clearly than I could what I was attempting to convey. There would be a conflict of laws. There would be a conflict between the municipal law of this country and the international obligations accepted by treaty. That would be the reality—

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry. I cannot give way to anyone any more. Other hon. Members wish to speak—

Mr. English: Not even a Liberal?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will always give way, of course, to a Liberal.
I have been dealing with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. They are points of substance, but, despite my right hon. Friend's disclaimer, they are also points of great legal importance.
I come back to the underlying realities of the situation. I do not deny that there are extremely important issues of legality involved. I am the last person to say that we in this House should not be concerned about law and procedure. But if we look at the realities of the situation we know that behind this legal struggle a political struggle is going on. I do not think that anyone would deny that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members opposite are seeking not only to see that the right procedures of this House are upheld but also to defeat this Bill. This is where there is room for sharp criticism of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). In order to defeat the Bill, it cannot be denied that the hon. Gentleman has been prepared to place the Chair in jeopardy. The maintenance of parliamentary liberties in this country depend on the maintenance of an impartial Chair. What we are voting on tonight is not for the Common Market or against it, not for the Government or against them, but for the maintenance of parliamentary liberties which are dependent now and always on the maintenance of an impartial, fair and strong Chair.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the point that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has just made, since the debate centres round the decision taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means, from whom we had the benefit of a statement yesterday, and since the Leader of the House has made a statement which completely contradicts what the Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday at column 269, not only in the interests of justice to the House but to the Chairman of Ways and Means—who is not under personal attack—would it not be proper


for him to address the House and give us the benefit of the further advice which he has had from his advisers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whatever kind of point that may be it is not a point of order for me.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that he had dealt with all the points raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has dealt with those points he flatters himself, although he certainly made passing refer- ences to them.
I am very much tempted to follow the hon. Gentleman in turn, but I will resist the temptation, except to comment on one of his first points, which seemed fundamentally wrong. The hon. Gentleman said that the British constitution, as he saw it, was not under threat. He disagreed with his right hon. Friend, who said that we were in a humiliating position, and brought forward the argument that in place of a written constitution we had the procedures of this House, and that our constitution was defended by adherence to those procedures.
With respect, far more important than the details of our procedures are the conventions of our constitution. The conventions of our constitution are deeply offended by the Bill before us. I think, too—though I say this with regret—that they are offended by the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means. A fundamental convention of our constitution surely is that if there are to be large and fundamental changes in our law they should be made only as a result of thorough debate in Parliament, with the proper procedures of Parliament, including the procedure for Amendments to be moved and discussed on all the real issues before the House and the country, and not merely on marginal issues.
It is that convention which is offended. That is why this is a House of Commons matter, and why, in support of our Motion, we ought to be hearing from hon. Members on both sides of the House who are in favour of entry into the Community, because the issue before us today goes wider than entry into the Community.
I hate being in a position of criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means. If I may put in a personal note, I cannot recall having made any criticism of the Chair during my 15 years in this House. I think that even the points of order which I have raised in that time could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
I agree with those who say that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been put into a very difficult position by the Government—but it is not quite an impossible position. I believe that he could have ruled differently yesterday. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) indicated ways in which he might have ruled differently. Therefore, I think that we are right to have the Motion in this form.
The fundamental point is that the Chairman of Ways and Means was put into this intolerably difficult position by the fact that the Government deliberately drafted a Bill to provide for the least possible debate and scope for amendment. I suggest that the Government deliberately drafted the Bill in that way. I do not agree with those who have spoken in terms of the Government's not knowing what they were doing.
We should not single out the Solicitor-General for blame in this respect. The Cabinet takes responsibility for this decision. It was a major political decision to present the Bill in this form. Therefore, the Leader of the House was the right Minister to open the debate for the Government. He made a rotten speech, but it was right that the speech should be made by a senior Member of the Cabinet on the political issues facing the House and the country at this moment.
We have been told by many right hon. and hon. Members that it is not possible for us to amend treaties. I put it to the House that if we are engaged in an exercise which involves making large and fundamental reforms to our law and large and fundamental changes in Britain's policy in the world we must devise methods by which we can discuss these matters in detail and, if necessary, amend them in detail. If previous rules which have applied to previous treaties have not enabled those treaties to be amended we must have new rules to deal with a


new situation. Indeed, we must have unique rules to deal with a unique situation.
Let us consider what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to approve a number of changes, any one of which, if it had been taken on its own, would have been the subject of either a major piece of legislation or, if it was not a legislative matter, at least a major debate in this House.
Let us take, for example, the financial provisions and the new types of taxation to which we will be subject. They are to be decided in an entirely new way. This matter is more important and far-reaching than the Finance Bills which have been put before this House over many years. Each of those Finance Bills has been the subject of weeks of parliamentary debate and detailed amendment either in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House. The process of being asked to accept this new type of taxation in this form should equally be subject, by those of us elected for this task, to detailed consideration and amendment.
Let us now consider a matter wbich is not legislative—the decision to phase out the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This is a matter of enormous importance to a number of weak and vulnerable countries which, until recently, were British colonies and for which we have great responsibility. Those countries can be ruined entirely if the terms of the treaty are applied and nothing more is done from 1975 onwards to protect them. If any Government were to come to the House in isolation and say, "We propose to end the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement", would not this House demand a debate, and would there not be a very important vote on that subject?
That consideration also applies to the proposal to phase out the arrangements with New Zealand for the purchase of her products, which have been vital to her economy over the years. Again, this should have been—and still ought to be—the subject of separate consideration and separate voting in this House. The point is that these matters have never been separately debated.
The Leader of the House has told us today how many hours of debate there have been on the Common Market. Each

of these debates over the last 10 years has been a general debate, in which hon. Members have referred to the items that I have indicated and to other matters, without any particular order of reference to them and without any separate decisions being taken. I ventured to suggest in one debate last year, while the negotiations were going on, that we ought to be having separate debates on some of these subjects. However, we have not had them. We ought to have had time for those debates in order to reach conclusions on those subjects.
When we had the debate and the vote on 28th October we did not have the treaty before us. Indeed, on the important matter of the fishing arrangements, agreement had not even been concluded at that point. Yet it is now suggested that the general vote on that occasion covered all these things.
This will not do. Surely hon. Members have a right to choose. Hon. Members who are broadly in support of the principle of entry into the Community have the right to make reservations on certain matters. Surely Conservative Members of Parliament representing fishing constituencies, for example, have a right to say, "We approve entry in general, but we do not go along with the fisheries part of the arrangements. Therefore, we withhold our support from that. We will support entry in general only if arrangements are now made on fisheries".
The whole concept of having separate debates and Amendments was described by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his intervention yesterday, as coming under the heading of wrecking Amendments. Surely we ought to be able to devise procedures whereby, if particular parts of these arrangements are not satisfactory to the House, we can say to him, or to the responsible Minister, "You must go back to Brussels and try again. You must tell them in Brussels that these points are not acceptable to the House of Commons". Why not? Are we being told that the Government are such rabbits that they dare not go back to Brussels and argue these points again, or are we being told that the Community is so rigid in its attitude and so contemptuous of our democracy that it would not be prepared to entertain any changes?

Mr. Anthony Fell: Yes.

Mr. Prentice: We are being told that? Some hon. Members who have previously supported our entry into the Community should ask themselves again whether that is the sort of Community to which we want to belong.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On 28th October we debated the terms and the House decided by a majority to accept the terms. It has the chance on every debate on the Question. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to say "No". But it has said "Yes", and until it says "No", the decision on principle remains unaltered.

Mr. Prentice: There are several things wrong with that argument. On 28th October we did not have the text of the treaty, even on those items which had been concluded—and on fisheries the negotiations had not been concluded.
I am trying to defend the position of hon. Members who are genuinely in favour of going in to the Community on most of the terms but have reservations on particular items. To be consistent with parliamentary democracy hon. Members should be able to move and support Amendments on particular aspects of the vast and complex package. The argument which the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) puts forward denies hon. Members the right to do that.
My view leads to the conclusion that the Bill will not do, and the concept of an unamendable treaty will not do. Hon. Members opposite who genuinely support entry, but who see this as a threat to Parliament, however loyal they may be to the Government in other matters, ought not just to be docile Lobby-fodder on this occasion. They should speak for the people who send them to this House and for the dignity and integrity of this House.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I repudiate entirely what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he tell us what his remarks have to do with the Motion of censure on the Chair?

Mr. Prentice: I shall make reference to the Chair. I am saying that it is the conduct of the Government in putting before us legislation in this form, and the conduct of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), who support the Government, that has

put the Chair into such a difficult position. The real answer to our problem is for the Government to withdraw the Bill and treat Parliament in a more civilised way.
Failing that, what is the position of the Chair? The Chairman of Ways and Means in his Rulings yesterday—and I paraphrase them—seemed to be saying that even if the Bill is unique—which he granted as a premise—the precedents governing the choice of Amendments and the decision as to which Amendments were in order were precedents handed down from the past which must apply even to a unique Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means should reconsider two points—first, the arguments put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the Long Title of the Bill enables him to take a more liberal view of Amendments than he had supposed to be the case. Secondly, he should reconsider the broad political point that he is the guardian—as you, Mr. Speaker, are the guardian—of the liberties and fundamental conventions of this House, as well as of the detailed rules of procedure, and that the House is placed in a humiliating position by the Government.
The occupant of the Chair has to do what he can to protect the House and the processes of debate. If the Bill is unique, the occasion arises for unique rulings. It is an occasion for setting precedents and not following the previous precedents to rigidly. Otherwise, the occupant of the Chair, however innocently and blamelessly, puts himself into the position of being the "fall guy" of the Establishment, and of being used by the Treasury Bench to do its dirty work and help to suppress the debate to which we are entitled.
There are three possible ways forward from this appalling situation. The first is to proceed with the Bill as it is, with narrow scope for amendment and with no chance for Amendments of substance to be moved. For the reasons which I and other hon. Members have given, that is an intolerable position for hon. Members to accept, and quite incompatible with the integrity of the House of Commons.
The alternative is to have a new Bill which sets out in proper form the changes in our law and policy which entry into the Common Market involves. This is the best alternative, and it could be proceeded with if Ministers would do it or if Goverment back benchers forced them to do it in the way I have suggested.
Failing that, the Chairman of Ways and Means should reconsider the position to see whether he can allow full scope for amendment so as to enable the House to discuss separately the great issues involved and to vote separately upon them.
If we adopt the first of my three suggestions and proceed with the Bill without the opportunity fully to debate Amendments, and to debate the big changes separately with a chance to vote on them separately, the majority of the House will have consented to dealing a blow to democracy in this country from which it will not recover for a long time.

7.17 p.m.

Sir John Foster: I ask the House to consider the terms of the Motion. It is not a Motion of censure on the Government, although many of the speeches have suggested that it is. When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was challenged by the Leader of the House on what he said in 1966 about not using censure Motions on the Chair for an attack on the Government, he entirely agreed, but the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and some of his hon. Friends have not followed that agreement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ended his speech by saying that the conduct of the Government was a disgrace, and other hon. Members have said that the Government were being dishonest and were deceiving the House. But that is not what the Motion of censure is about; the Motion of censure is about the conduct of the Chair. The conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means is criticised because, as is said in the Motion, that Ruling—
…gravely infringes the rights of the House and its powers of decision …".
Hon. Members should remember that the rules of procedure have been worked out to give a balance to enable the Government of the country to continue. In certain instances the House as a whole

feels frustrated because its rules of procedure prevent it from deciding to do what a large majority of hon. Members want to do. A good instance of this occurred a few days ago when the House did not give a Second Reading to the Anti-Discrimination Bill because the rules of procedure prevented its being fully discussed. The House has imposed these limitations on itself because the Opposition must have a fair go and the Government of the country must be continued.
The attack on the Government is a separate matter. The Chair has been criticised for giving a certain Ruling, but I submit that the only legitimate form of criticism in this debate is the criticism that the Ruling was wrong, and I shall come to this shortly. The Chair decided to select only certain Amendments. Presumably that selection was done on the grounds, first, that those Amendments were in order and, second, that in his discretion the Chairman wished to choose them.
It is clear that unless this point is taken a Motion of censure in this case would be a Motion in a circle, as it were. After all, how can one argue that because the Chairman abided by the rules of order he somehow infringed the rules of the House? This is rather what some hon. Gentlemen said yesterday about this being a unique Bill which deserved unique rules of procedure.
I urge the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who argued in this vein, to appreciate that such unique rules do not exist. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to change the rules of order, but that cannot be done by means of a Motion of censure on the Chair. It is not the fault of the Chair that our rules of order are what they are.
If the Chairman were censured—in other words, if the Motion of censure were carried—on this aspect of the case, then he would have been censured for ruling in accordance with our rules of order. Then there would be a new selection of Amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but that would be contrary to the rules of order, and the whole thing would not make sense.
It must, therefore, be agreed that the only legitimate criticism is not whether the Government were deceitful or whether


this is a unique Bill or even whether the rights of hon. Members are being strangled. The criticism is that the Chairman was wrong in his Ruling.

Mr. Fell: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this insistence on certitude may result in the Government losing the Bill, anyway?

Sir J. Foster: I leave the Government to look after that. I do not think they will lose the Bill. Indeed, I do not see how the Government have insisted on anything. They drafted a Bill which will bring into operation a treaty, and in my submission the Ruling of the Chairman was right. In other words, a case has not been made against his Ruling.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Was the hon. and learned Member not in his place yesterday when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) spoke of the distinction between the Long Title and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum? The same point was made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to give us the benefit of his experience on this aspect?

Sir J. Foster: It seems clear that the Explanatory Memorandum spells out the Long Title. There is no conflict between them. The principle of the Bill—it is important to bear in mind what "Erskine May" says on this—is to bring into operation in English law the treaties to which the Measure refers. The Long Title describes this as a Bill
To make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom
and the principle of the Bill is to enlarge the Community; it cannot be enlarged unless United Kingdom law contains certain provisions relating to the Community. Meanwhile, the Explanatory Memorandum says that
The Bill makes the legislative changes which will enable the United Kingdom to comply with
certain obligations. Complying with those obligations will enlarge the Community by including the United Kingdom. There is, therefore, no conflict between the Explanatory Memorandum and the Long Title. In other words, this is a

convenient way of alluding to the Explanatory Memorandum, which spells out in more detail what the Long Title means.
If I am right about this and if the principle of the Bill is to bring into operation in English law the treaties to which the Measure refers, then it is worth remembering that "Erskine May" says, in its general references, that the principle of a Bill must not be upset in Committee by introducing Amendments contrary to the principle. Such Amendments have always been known as wrecking ones.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Sir J. Foster: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes he might care to observe what "Erskine May" says, about 10 lines down on one page on the left in the general provisions, about disregarding an Amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I will look into the point in "Erskine May" to which he refers and comment on it when, as I hope I shall have the opportunity, I make my own speech later.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman has relied, at least in part, on the existence of the Explanatory Memorandum for his argument, may I ask him to say what would be the position if there were no Explanatory Memorandum but only the Long Title? Does he think that the Amendments which were ruled out of order would then become in order?

Sir J. Foster: The Explanatory Memorandum can be used only to explain the Long Title, but not legally. The Memorandum has no legal significance.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Sir J. Foster: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has a copy of "Erskine May" with him. I fear that I do not have mine with me. I trust that he will examine it because I am sure that it supports the case I am making.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that it is the Long Title and not the Explanatory Memorandum which is binding, may I ask him to explain why the Chairman of


Ways and Means quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum and not the Long Title?
I know well the part in "Erskine May" which implements the general principle to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It says, in effect, that anything which amounts to a repealing of the principle of any Bill is out of order. However, I instanced certain Amendments—for example, No. 17, which has not been selected—which would merely alter the date and would, clearly, not negative the principle of the Bill. Under what provision was that ruled out of order?

Sir J. Foster: That Amendment would have altered the date from 1973 to 1975. In my view, to have done that would have been contrary to the principle of the Bill—

Mr. Jay: No.

Sir J. Foster: —because it would have deferred entry until 1975.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sir J. Foster: I do not want to give way too often. I shall only be led down a lot of side alleys and thereby take far too long over my speech.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North wants to know why the Chairman of Ways and Means selected one Amendment in preference to another. None of us has the slightest idea why, but it seems a reasonable course of action for the Long Title to refer to something and for that something to be spelled out in the Explanatory Memorandum.
So the Chairman takes that. He does not have to say, "The Long Title says this." This is embodied in the Explanatory Memorandum, which sets it out at greater length. But one cannot say why the Chairman did not. I advance a very good reason for it: the Chairman wanting to shorten his explanation by 10 or 12 words, and saying that the Explanatory Memorandum meant so-and-so.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Sir J. Foster: I have not answered the intervention of the other right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, that the general principle of a wrecking Amendment is that it goes contrary to the principle of the Bill. If

one has the Amendment, the Bill is at an end; and wrecking Amendments have always been disregarded.
If we return to why I say that the arguments put forward for showing that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong are rather weak, I have answered to the best of my ability the point made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North.
Then there was an interesting point, which was also rather down a side alley, made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). But that depends on a fallacy of hon. Members opposite that a treaty can be amended. The hon. Member made rather an attractive argument. He said that in the Treaty on Safety at Sea of 1964, or whenever it was, it was possible for reservations to be put in because the House of Commons, when passing a Private Member's Bill supported by the Government, did not pass Part VIII because a reservation was put in.

Mr. John Mendelson: I certainly did not make that point. It must have been someone else.

An Hon. Member: It was the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).

Sir J. Foster: I apologise to the hon. Member for Penistone, but it was an interesting point—if he had put it. It is rather attractive. Here is a treaty. The House of Commons puts in a reservation at the request of the Government. But one of my hon. Friends intervened and pointed out the difference: that there were model treaties laid down and everyone in the world, members of the World Court and the United Nations, could join in and put in reservations. But the Community treaty is another kind of treaty where it is a contract between A and B. Where one has such a contract which, owing to one's internal legislation, has to be brought into effect in the internal legislation, one cannot put in a reservation. All that one can do is to ask them to renegotiate. But if one does that, that is an end of the principle of the treaty and one starts again.

An Hon. Member: Why not?

Sir J. Foster: Maybe not "Why not?". I am saying only that in the rules of order it is a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I raised this point a little while ago. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about wrecking Amendments? We have two Amendments, Nos. 32 and 33, which cite certain protocols, Nos. 18 and 22, and they say that these protocols
shall only be included in the pre-accession treaties after it has been approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.
That does not say that we will turn it away. It says that we shall have it in only after a specific and affirmative Resolution. First, how can they be wrecking Amendments on the criteria that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned? Second, how does he know that, even after Parliament decided not to pass a certain protocol, we would not still go back to the Community, which would still have us in despite the fact that certain protocols had not been passed by this House? How can they be wrecking Amendments on those criteria?

Sir J. Foster: I do not want to go into that.

Mr. Spearing: They have been ruled out.

Sir J. Foster: They would be unlikely to be outside the scope of the Bill, but it could be that they have not been selected.

Sir Robin Turton: The Chairman of Ways and Means said "very important Amendments "—clearly referring to the protocol—had not been selected because they were out of order and not from the degree of importance. He must be referring to that point.

Sir J. Foster: I do not agree with that, because the reasons were given in general terms and they covered discretion and out of order.

Mr. Jay: The Chairman said "including all the important ones".

Sir J. Foster: If an Amendment alters the Bill, it then goes contrary to the principle of the Bill, that these protocols shall come into operation if they are approved by the House. The Chairman also, I suspect, may have thought that they would be safeguarded by affirmative Resolution and that they would not be all that important. One cannot have anything better than an affirmative Resolu-

tion. Otherwise, one would have to have Amendments approved by separate Statute.
One cannot go into the Chairman's mind. I say here, in parenthesis, that it is an unfortunate aspect of one of our procedures that when the House ought to act in a judicial capacity we have decided on a Motion of censure, when people vote in parties. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was of that opinion. But we cannot rely on everybody acting in a judicial capacity in this case, especially when the Opposition have put forward a Motion of censure on the Government, indirectly.

Mr. Paget: On the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been making about why we cannot amend the treaty, if the Bill proposes to make that treaty part of our law we can amend it. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has considered the Irish Treaty, which was the basis of the setting up of the Irish Free State. When that treaty came before the House, a whole series of Amendments to it were accepted in spite of the fact that the Attorney-General then pointed out that they would wreck the agreement. The then Mr. Speaker ruled that while they might wreck the agreement, that was nothing to do with him. If this treaty is to be made part of the law of England, we amend it here.

Sir J. Foster: But I think that the Government went back to the Irish Government and renegotiated a new treaty. They renegotiated a new treaty because the Government had had their treaty wrecked. But it was a wrecking Amendment.
Here the principle of the Bill is to enter the Communities, and there seems no doubt that it is a wrecking Amendment to undermine the whole principle of the Bill.
With regard to treaties which are general treaties where one comes into them with any reservations one likes and where one breaks an agreement between A and B, it is contrary to the principle of the Bill to alter one's agreement with B, and one cannot do that.
As regards the Motion of censure on the Government, the House should not, in its judicial capacity of deciding whether


the Chair should be censured, pay any attention to those arguments. Those who say that the Chair has been put in an impossible position mean that the Chairman is right but that the effect on Parliament has been such that they do not approve of it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would the hon. and learned Member meet this point? The Chairman of Ways and Means said last night that this was not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession. If it were such a Bill, then Amendments could be taken. As I understood it, both the speakers from the Front Benches today said that this was a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession. Does the hon. and learned Member agree with that interpretation of the Bill, and if he does, then is not the Chairman of Ways and Means wrong in his interpretation?

Sir J. Foster: I see the dilemma which the hon. Member is trying to lead me into. We could have a Bill to approve a treaty, but it would be very unusual, and this is not that kind of Bill.

Mr. Lyon: What is it?

Sir J. Foster: I have been asked a dilemma question and I must answer it in a dilemma fashion. We can imagine a Bill coming before Parliament seeking to approve a certain treaty, and then the Chairman of Ways and Means would be right because all kinds of Amendments would be put in which would not wreck the principle of the Bill, because, of course, the principle would be to approve the treaty. But this is a Bill to bring the Community treaties within the operation of the laws of the United Kingdom. That is something quite different, and it is not an approval in that sense, but if one deduces that to bring the law of the Community into the law of England is approval in another sense, I would not disagree and both parties are right. The term "approval" can be used in different senses.

Mr. Lyon: It is a matter of semantics.

Sir J. Foster: Yes, it is, but it is also a matter of semantics to say that the Chairman of Ways and Means was directing the House, or the other way round. It has to be dealt with in a semantic fashion because we return to the point that the Bill is only an approval in that it is, in a sense, to bring the law of the

United Kingdom in conformation with that of the Community. It comes back to the point that any Amendment which is a wrecking Amendment must be disallowed. Therefore, the question is: Was the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the exercise of his judgment, wrong in deciding that the important Amendments referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) were wrecking Amendments? If he is right he cannot be censured because he has been put in an impossible position. It is the Government who are alleged to be in an impossible position, but the Government are not under censure, and, therefore, I should have thought the inevitable result of this censure is that the House of Commons should consider whether there was any ground for saying that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong.

Mr. Denzil Davies: May I return to the argument about whether the Bill approves the treaty or not'? If on the hon. and learned Gentleman's view this Bill does not approve the treaties in the constitutional sense, what sort of Bill does he think the Government should introduce to comply with the constitutional convention of approving treaties?

Sir J. Foster: In my respectful submission, the House of Commons approves of a Bill when by a large majority it agrees with its principle. The Executive is then agreed with the other parties to this kind of contract. If it wants to reject the treaty it refuses to let the law of the treaty into the law of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lyon: This is absolutely crucial to the whole question of the Motion of censure. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that the Government asked the House to approve of a treaty by voting on the principle of the Bill. If that is true, then the Second Reading of the Bill ended with a vote to approve the Treaty of Accession. The Chairman of Ways and Means last night said that that meant that the matter could be amended. If that is so he is wrong in his interpretation of what the Bill actually does; and if he is wrong we are right to censure him.

Sir J. Foster: I can only repeat what was described as my semantic argument.
The House expresses its disapproval of a treaty and wants to knock it out by either voting against it on Second Reading or Third Reading or deleting one of the essential Clauses. In that sense it has shown its disapproval. But the House of Commons does not have to approve it in the sense that the hon. Member has said. There is no need for that. Approval in a different sense is to bring the law of the United Kingdom into conformity. It ratifies afterwards. That seems to me to satisfy the argument of the hon. Member. I apologise for having spoken so long.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) began by being extremely persuasive. But I felt that by the end of the argument, during the course of which he accepted many interjections with very good humour, he succeeded in unpersuading himself because he spoke with less conviction the further he went. The point at which he succeeded in coming over to our side, whether he wanted to or not, was where he repeated the point he made yesterday in which he described the Amendments which have been ruled out of order as wrecking Amendments.
My only qualification for intervening in the debate is not that I have the knowledge and background of the hon. and learned Member. It is that since coming to the House in 1964 I have spent more time in Standing Committee and in Committee of the House than in the House itself. I have therefore a great deal of working experience of what goes on in Committee, of what is acceptable, and of what is a wrecking Amendment and what is not.
Broadly speaking, any Amendment which seeks to challenge the fundamental ideas of a Bill is regarded by the Government as a wrecking Amendment, but in my experience I have never known such Amendments to be ruled out of order. They are discussed. How many times have we seen the formality in which the mover of an Amendment says that it will improve the Bill but the Government say that it will wreck the Bill, sometimes only slightly but sometimes totally? The Government will not accept the Amendment because the Bill is in the condition in which they want it. Sometimes the

Government say they have made a slight error of judgment, and they agree to a minor alteration, or there may be some semantic change which the Government would accept. There may be occasions on which the Opposition wish to probe the Government's intentions, and an Amendment is put down for this purpose. In the Standing Committee on which I am now serving, which is dealing with the Sound Broadcasting Bill, three changes have been made of a fundamental character. The Government have said that they believe the changes will spoil the Bill and that they are wrecking Amendments. The Government have said, "We shall think about this, but it is very likely that on Report we shall try to restore the position, because we believe that the Amendment would spoil our Bill."
That is precisely the situation we should now be in if we succeeded in Committee. That is why, with enormous respect to the Chairman of Ways and Means, I think the criticism of him must lie. He took it upon himself to decide that the Amendments were out of order and should not be discussed, but the Government should have been placed in the position of defending themselves, and those who wished to attack the Bill should have been able to do so. The debate should have been allowed to take place. If the Government, as I believe, placed the Chairman of Ways and Means in an impossible postion by their drafting, they must share the blame. But the criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means, for whom I have the utmost respect, is that on this occasion he erred on the side of the Government when he should have erred on the side of the House.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Amendment No. 17 seeks to replace "1972" by "1975". Is that a wrecking Amendment? The House decided on 28th October that the United Kingdom should join the Communities on 1st January, 1973 so to insert "1975" makes nonsense of the Bill. I believe that that is a wrecking Amendment, and that, therefore, the Chairman of Ways and Means is absolutely right.

Mr. Jenkins: We can agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, with the exception of his last sentences. We might


accept that the Amendment would make the Bill impossible of operation. If the debate on it had taken place it would have been proper for the Government to say, "We resist the Amendment, because if it is carried it will spoil the Bill". Our complaint is that the debate was prevented from taking place. With the utmost sympathy for the position in which the Chairman of Ways and Means was placed, I believe he made an error on this occasion. It was understandable, because it was almost forced upon him by the Government, but it was none the less an error.

Sir J. Foster: Although the hon. Gentleman has been on many more Committees than I have, he is mistaken on the procedure in Committee. The Amendments are selected before the debate starts or from day to day, and wrecking Amendments are not selected. It is not open to the Government to say in the middle of debate, "This is a wrecking Amendment", and so get the Chair to withdraw it. When the Government described an Amendment as a wrecking Amendment they are using that description in a different sense. They mean that it wrecks the purpose of their Bill because they want it one way and not another. A wrecking Amendment is a technical matter. It destroys the whole basis, the principle, of the Bill.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that one man's improvement is another man's wrecking. To do the Chairman of Ways and Means justice, he has not declared that any of the Amendments are wrecking Amendments. It is the hon. and learned Gentleman who has attributed to him such a reason for ruling the Amendments out of order. We do not know whether the Chairman of Ways and Means shares the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the Amendments.
I have never moved a fundamental Amendment that has not been described by the Government of the day as a wrecking Amendment. Most hon. Members will have had similar experience. Every Amendment which seeks to make a fundamental change must be regarded by those who introduce the Bill as spoiling it, wrecking it. If we reach a situation in which it is said that we cannot move Amendments that the Government re-

gard as being of a wrecking character, the whole purpose of Committee debates will be lost, because we cannot discuss them at all. We on this side seek to make fundamental changes. Are we to be told that if any change we seek to make has the effect of forcing the Government to return to Brussels we must not do that? If so, we are forced into baying that the debate loses its purpose entirely.

Mr. Spearing: I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's point. If the Amendment is a wrecking Amendment and it is put to the vote, why cannot the Government defeat it? That is what they have said all the time they will do.

Mr. Jenkins: That is the practice. If the Government's argument that an Amendment is wrecking convinces the Committee, the Amendment will not be carried. Our complaint, made reluctantly, is that the Chairman of Ways and Means has prevented the Government from having to make the argument and possibly persuade us that an Amendment is wrong, with the result that we withdraw it. That is why we must pursue the matter, with the greatest good will and respect—almost with affection—to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that every Amendment he had ever moved had been described by Ministers as a wrecking Amendment. The hon. Gentleman and I have reached about the 30th sitting of a Committee considering a Bill upstairs, and I have never heard any Amendments moved by the hon. Gentleman described as wrecking Amendments by the Minister in charge.

Mr. Jenkins: I did not say precisely what the hon. Gentleman thinks. I said that any Amendment seeking to make fundamental changes was regarded by the Government as wrecking. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications regards his Bill as being slightly wrecked by an Amendment for which the hon. Gentleman was responsible in that Committee, and has said that he intends to repair the wreckage on report. We do not know whether he will succeed, but at least we had the debate. Our complaint now is that the


House is being deprived of its proper function of going into matters in detail.
The question of parliamentary approval has been raised, and the meaning of approval "has been questioned. The best chap to deal with this is the Solicitor-General, who said on 20th January:
If a treaty includes an alteration of our domestic law, including the granting of new powers to the Crown or the undertaking of new financial commitments, then Parliamentary approval in the form of appropriate legislation is necessary before the objectives of the treaty can be met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972 Vol. 829, c. 794.]
On the basis of that and the other arguments that I have made, I hope that the consequence of the debate will be that the House will decide, on this extremely abstruse and complex problem, that an error has been made which we can easily rectify with the necessary good will.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Ernie Money: I find the character of tonight's debate somewhat puzzling, in that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), said with great force and vigour that this was not a legal occasion, but every sign and almost every argument seems to show that he is wrong. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) quoted Professor Schwarzenberger with great force. We had an admission yesterday from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), albeit somewhat shamefacedly, that he had been hob-nobbing with lawyers. Today a truly overwhelming pile of learning was brought in by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If the hon. and learned Gentleman needs to bring a pile of learning with him in addition to the learning he carries with him in the ordinary way, this must indeed be a very legal occasion.
But it was perhaps the two previous speeches that highlighted the difficulty the House has been in tonight in trying to decide whether to deal with the matter on its merits or as just one more political debate on the Common Market.
It was the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) that put this matter totally and clearly in perspective. The House always listens with interest to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) but on this occasion I believe

that he has gone off into a sort of cloudcuckoo-land as a result of his failure to understand what he was dealing with in the words "wrecking Amendments". He and many of his hon. Friends have not faced the point that the House is concerned with a Bill to introduce the Treaty as it stands.

Mr. Spearing: Ha, ha!

Mr. Money: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) says "Ha, ha". I hope that at this stage it is simply "Ha, ha" and not an intervention, as I want to continue my argument with the hon. Member for Putney. As I was saying, the lacuna in the hon. Gentleman's argument is his failure to realise that any Amendment aimed to change the character of the treaty is a wrecking Amendment. I take as an example the dozen Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)—Amendments Nos. 84 to 95. Each of these would have the effect of ratifying the treaty only with reservations. Of course those Amendments are wrecking in the legal sense of the word. It is not that they would wreck the Bill as such but that they would change the nature of the treaty. Changing the character of the treaty in this way would mean that under our law it could not go forward.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps misunderstood me. I am agreeable with his definition of what this is about. There are two kinds of Amendments—those which can be accepted without fundamental changes and without the necessity, therefore, of taking the treaty back for renegotiation, and those which will have that effect. We say that both types of Amendment should be capable of debate and decision in Committee.

Mr. Money: This is one of the aspects of the Opposition's arguments which have puzzled me most. Of course the opportunity for debate exists. Another of the matters which has puzzled me is the statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) yesterday when he said that to require the House to embark on consideration without opportunity of Amendment and discussion was contrary to the rules of the House. As I understand


the position, there is no limitation of any sort on discussion. That is inherent in the Bill. All that is being cut out is the wasting of the time of the House for political reasons by the putting forward of a series of Amendments whose whole purpose is to change the character of the Bill, and which are not designed to create the opportunity for discussion of what the treaty is about.
When the hon. Member for Putney and the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, North complain about the way in which the matter comes before the House, they are saying that they do not like our normal system of treaty-making and implementation under our law and in the House of Commons.

Mr. George Cunningham: What is normal about this treaty?

Mr. Money: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene I shall be delighted to give way.

Mr. Cunningham: What is normal about the treaty?

Mr. Money: I will come to that in a moment. The hon. Member for Putney is, I know, a fair man. It seems to me unfair to complain against the system by advising the House to bring a Motion of censure against the Chair merely for bringing the system into effect.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). The argument that he has put forward, both from a seated position and in a standing intervention, is that this is a unique occasion. It may be unique in the sense that this matter is of great concern to the House and the country, but I turn to an obvious precedent which affected even more seriously the position of this House—the Act of Union of 1707. I quote the words of probably the greatest English constitutional historian. Dicey, in his "Thoughts on the Scottish Union", having dealt with the factors involved, said:
it was clear that to touch any provision of the Bill would in fact be a rejection of a contract arrived at on each side with the greatest trouble. It would have in common fairness involved the sending back of the Act of Union to Scotland for reconsideration. No Unionist could foresee with confidence the

result of a reopening of an elaborately arranged international contract.
What is normal here is that what is inherent in any treaty considered by this House, whether the treaty be of the utmost significance or of a more formal and simplistic kind, is the whole question whether the Bill, as such, can be amended without destroying the treaty.

Mr. Paget: What the hon. Gentleman says about the Scottish treaty applies with equal force to the Irish treaty and the Act to implement the treaty negotiated with Ireland for the setting up of the Irish Free State. That Measure came before the House in a form to make the treaty part of our laws. Amendments were accepted. The Attorney-General pointed out that they would wreck the agreement. The Chair held that although they might wreck the agreement that did not concern the Chair, and that the treaty was to make part of the laws of England in that sense, and it could be amended. That seems to be the case obtaining here, which shows that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong in law yesterday.

Mr. Money: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman's considerable seniority in law, I will try to answer his point. The treaty made with the Irish Free State—or what became the Free State—was made with that which had been a dependent part of our municipal law. It concerned a break-away within the law of the United Kingdom, and it did not necessitate the full form of ratification and implementation that would be necessary under international law. I hope that I have answered the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Member reads the report of 1922 debate he will find that that is not the form it took.

Mr. Money: It may not be, but I would respectfully say that that was the form it had in law.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. Gentleman no doubt inadvertently referred to the Act of Union with Scotland. I have no doubt that with his legal knowledge he realises that there were two Acts—the Scottish Act ratifying the treaty and the English Act doing likewise. Will he accept that in each case the express terms of the treaty


were ratified by solemn act of the Legislature of each country, in marked contrast to the proposals that we are now debating?

Mr. Money: I go further and say that there was a marked difference there, because the Scots Act was amended but our Act—I use the word "our" not in any impertinent sense, but to mean the Act passed by the English Parliament sitting in London—set what has become the precedent which has been binding—and all the authorities that I have been able to consult confirm this—on the British system for the ratification of international treaties.
I am aware that I have taken the time of the House. Perhaps the chief value of my speech has lain in the fact that it has provoked some stimulating interventions from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have no doubt that the Bill will have to stand its trial by decibel over the coming months both from those who have always been determined opponents of entry to the Common Market and from those who have become political opponents in recent months. I have no doubt, also, that it will have to run the gauntlet of endless points of order, some more relevant than others. What I do hope is that, in order to prolong a political battle, the Chair and the sheer good sense of the law as it was spelt out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), will not be deluged by a lot of political double-think of the kind to which the House has been subjected in the last two days.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. John Morris (Aberayon): I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not follow in detail the observations of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). He suggested that the whole purpose of the Amendments was to change the character of the Bill. The suggestion has been made time and again that these are wrecking Amendments. The House was reminded yesterday, when in Committee, by myself and others that at no time did the Chairman of Ways and Means rule any Amendment out of order because it was a wrecking Amendment. That point was first made by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), and it was followed up by the

Chancellor of the Duchy. At no time was that point taken by the Chair, and the sooner we ditch it the better. It has not been prayed in aid by the Chair.
We have had a somewhat odd and irrelevant speech from the Leader of the House. The first thing I do is to acquit the Leader of the House of having written the speech himself. It must have been the work of others. I sensed this afternon that I was at a Mad Hatter's tea party listening to his wholly irrelevant observations on the matter at issue. The most charitable thing I can say about him and the Government is that they did not know what they were doing when they introduced this Bill. The least charitable thing I can say is that they did know and it was a deliberate attempt to curtail discussion, to gag this House on what we have been told is the most important matter to come before us for decision this century.
Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in Government know that all legislation, important and trivial, must go before a Legislation Committee. This is the usual practice with all Governments. The sponsor of the Bill—and with an important Bill like this I would expect him to be supported by a Law Officer—explains the Bill to Cabinet and non-Cabinet members of the Government. It would have been explained in detail, and the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary would have been deeply interested in the likely timing, matters likely to be raised, the divisions in the ranks so that advantage might be taken of them and such matters dealing with tactics and strategy. All would have been canvassed in the Legislation Committee. With such a Bill as this I suspect there would have been more than one meeting. One cannot exonerate those members of the Government whose names appear on the back of this Bill from doing exactly what they set out to do. With the best will in the world I suspect the worst, that the whole concept of the Bill when it was concocted and presented to the House was as it has turned out to be. It hardly lies in the mouth of the Leader of the House to say that the Government have no possible knowledge of how Amendments would be selected. Perhaps they did not know the details, but they knew the general strategy and limitations that would be imposed on the Amendments.
We had a defence from the Leader of the House about the amount of time allowed for the Bill. Secondly, as a sop to the House he said that it can reject any Clause if it is so minded. This means that we can discuss on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" matters which it has been held would be out of order earlier. My understanding in the time that I have been here is that we cannot do this. I cannot comprehend what kind of sop the Leader of the House is offering to us. It is said we can reject a whole Clause; yet that would obviously change the nature and character of the agreement entered into by the Government. How does one differentiate between a Clause which will alter the nature of the agreement and an Amendment which would seek to amend a lesser part of the Bill? It just does not stand up.
If it is said that we cannot do anything than take it or leave it, then that runs contrary to the repeated assurances given earlier about the Bill. If Ministers knew what they were doing, all that has happened since yesterday is fundamentally different from the understanding of the House. Suggestions have been made, which I consider to be a complete red herring, that we are seeking to amend the treaty. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are considering a Bill presented to this House to implement a treaty, and we are looking at ways and means of changing the manner of the implementation. If we do not like the manner of the implementation. If the Clauses are changed or amended, or deleted entirely, which we are still allowed to do, the Government will have to go back and renegotiate the treaty. That is made quite clear.
I do not propose to worry the House by reading from the discussions—I would have done so, but other hon. Members want to speak—which took place in this House on the Ottawa Agreements Bill as far back as 1932. In a similar instance Sir Herbert Samuel said:
… the Agreements which are scheduled to the Bill were Acts formally signed at Ottawa on a past date in the month of August and are clearly not now alterable by Parliament. Is Parliament, then, free to make Amendments in the Clauses which would render those Clauses inconsistent with the terms of the Schedules? That is the point of substance I wish to put to you.

That point is to a certain degree parallel to what we are discussing today. Among tile statements made by the Chairman of Ways and Means on that day were words to this effect, that it would certainly be open to the House to change and challenge and, indeed, introduce Amendments, and carry them, which would reduce the amount of tariffs which had been agreed in the course of the negotiation of the Ottawa Agreements. That, in my submission, would change completely and fundamentally the character of a Bill which was presented and of a treaty which had been negotiated. This is what the Chairman of Ways and Means said at the end of his decision when he was asked by an hon. Gentleman:
Is Parliament then free to make Amendments to the Clauses which would render those Clauses inconsistent with the terms of the Schedules; in other words, with the terms of the Agreements?
His reply was:
Parliament is free to do so, but what the effect of it would be is not necessary for me to rule at this present moment. If Parliament refuses to pass legislation which would enable the Executive Government to give effect to the Agreements which would have been entered into, that would raise a situation which it is not for me to deal with at this juncture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1932; Vol. 269, c. 1331–4.]
That is an exact parallel of this case. We are free to delete the whole Clause or change it by way of Amendment, and I submit that on these precedents we have freedom to present Amendments which would either change or reduce the calls upon public money in this country. Then, at the end of the day, the Government have to go back and renegotiate. At no time have we sought to amend the treaty itself. What we have sought to do is amend the enabling Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would assist me in understanding the nature of his Quarrel. Is he quarrelling with the Chairman of Ways and Means because he considers he is wrong in ruling certain Amendments out of order, or is he merely quarrelling with the Government over the way they have drafted the Bill?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of listening to what I am saying he would not need


to ask that question. Obviously there is concern on this side of the House with both those matters, but we are dealing now with the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I have quoted what I consider to be a respectable precedent which substantiates what I have sought to tell the House. I shall come in a moment to the Government as well, but I was seeking to deal with the exact precedents.
We have been told time after time in the course of this debate what we cannot do. We had a very strange observation from the Leader of the House this afternoon—indeed, I am being too modest; we had a number of strange observations. I am grateful to one of my hon. Friends for pointing that out. The Leader of the House said—these are the words I took down and I hope we shall find them in HANSARD in due course because we shall examine with some care the words recorded therein; I give the House notice of this:
The purpose of this Bill is to ratify the Treaty of Accession.
I put it to the Leader of the House—but was given no reasonable explanation—that I was sure he was not using the word "ratify" in its legal sense. He washed his hands of any idea of being a lawyer. He said he was here as Leader of the House and was doing his best according to his lights to assist the House, and the purpose of this Measure was to approve the Treaty of Accession. But how can the statement at the Box today be married with what the Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday:
It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any other treaties which are basic to the membership of the Communities. If it were such a Bill, then, of course, every article in these treaties would be open to discussion and the majority of Amendments to Clause 1 would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.]
Perhaps the Chairman of Ways and Means has completely misunderstood the position; he acted on the best advice open to him. That obviously differed somewhat from the categorical statement made in reply to my Question this afternoon by the Leader of the House. But if the Government have it—and I take it for the purposes of the argument that the Government are right in this matter—that their purpose is to ratify and

approve this Bill, then the Chairman of Ways and Means has quite innocently misunderstood the position, and the Government have misunderstood the position. Therefore, the only course open to them is to reconsider the whole mechanism of the Bill and go back to their original concept and present a Bill to the House which would ratify and approve the Treaty of Accession. That, in turn, would mean that the Chairman of Ways and Means would be able to provide liberally for discussion of Amendments in the terms he set out in what he said yesterday.

Dr. Alan Glyn: rose—

Mr. Morris: I am always willing to give way but on this occasion, when I know many other hon. Gentlemen want to speak, I really must get on.
I have read with interest some of the comments made today on the anger in some sectors on the other side of the House at our daring to criticise the Chair. We seem to be doing something wholly wrong and attacking the referee. This was the gist of some of the remarks of the Leader of the House today. That is absolute and utter nonsense. The rules provide that when a Chairman rules we desist from quarrelling with him and put down a substantive Motion.
That is what has been done, and there can be nothing improper, unfair or unworthy in that. I know that the Chairman of Ways and Means will accept that there is nothing personal in what I say about his conduct. He is doing what he can with what has been provided for him. I have seen him conducting the Committee on the Transport Bill, of which I had the honour to be one of the presenters—it was a most difficult and contentious Committee—month after month. We agreed with some of his decisions and disagreed with others, but he always acted with the utmost fairness. So there is nothing unfair in this, and I cannot understand these comments.
The whole fabric of democratic discussion is at stake here. Unless we seize the opportunity and put down a Motion of this kind, what other course is open to us in a democracy? This forum safeguards the constitution, since we do not have a supreme court. We are the sole


arbiters. Whether the Chairman is right or wrong, if the decision tonight is in his favour a precedent is created. This course could be infectious, and hon. Members opposite may one day quarrel with a Bill presented by a Labour Government.
The Chairman of Ways and Means said that the "majority" of the Amendments were out of order—the most important ones. I suppose that that means that we would be at liberty to discuss the trivia but not the fundamental Amendments. Some were not selected, but the majority were out of order. I invited the Chairman yesterday to differentiate between those which were merely not selected and those which were out of order. I will not go through them one by one, but if one examines them it is difficult to discover on what grounds some of them could have been rejected at all.
We were told yesterday that the Chairman was acting on advice. This is a Bill without parallel. How on earth can advice about the ordinary course of events apply to the Chairman's discretion with regard to a novel Bill? The comparison between what the Chairman said in col. 269 and what the Leader of the House said today needs a great deal of explanation.
As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, the Chairman sought to read to the House the Explanatory Memorandum, which he said showed the scope of the Bill. It does nothing of the kind. If the Bill ever becomes an Act, the Explanatory Memorandum will not be near the book of Statutes. It will be forgotten and lost, no part of the record of the law. All that will be there is the Long Title.
Whatever explanation the Explanatory Memorandum contains cannot crib, cabin or confine the Long Title, which is sufficiently detailed and lengthy to allow a whole host of Amendments. I cannot understand how the Chairman prayed this in aid of his decision to limit the Amendments. Nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum can limit the Bill; it can only explain it.
The Government have placed the House in an impossible position. I reecho the words of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West when he said that in the interests of the whole House—I am sure he said this with the

utmost sincerity—those who are opponents of the Bill and those who support it should consider and give time for thought before a final and irrevocable decision is taken. I hope that at this late hour, in the interests of democracy, it will not go out from this House as the Chairman said yesterday:
These rules are not made to be difficult. They are made for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the free society which the House has set up in this country and which has been a pattern to the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 293.]
Echoing and adopting those words, I ask the House to pause and consider their importance.

8.35 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I owe the House an apology for not having been here between 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. because I was attending a meeting of a Select Committee. I believe that I have heard practically everything that has happened since then. I cannot believe that what I heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) was consistent with the argument propounded by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) who went out of his way to make quite clear that it was the intention of hon. Members opposite to criticise not the Chair but the Government for having introduced the Bill in this way.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The hon. Member must either have misheard me or I could not have made myself clear. The whole essence of my speech was to question the rightness of the decision of the Chairman in interpreting the Bill as he has done, and to point out that certain consequences followed in regard to the Government's behaviour if it were held that my view was wrong.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That is a very helpful clarification, because I was getting the impression from hon. Members opposite that the terms of the Motion might be ignored because the real criticism was the fact that this Bill is in the form that it is in.
I rise for one purpose only. Having been a member of the Chairman's Panel for many years; having the privilege of serving on it with the present Chairman of Ways and Means, and having had to make the same decisions in which he has


been involved in selecting Amendments to the Bill, I hope that I have some knowledge of the procedure followed by a Chairman of a Committee of the whole House or of a Standing Committee before the final selection is made of Amendments for debate.
In my experience one bends over backward to avoid ruling out an Amendment on the ground that it is out of order. One does everything to make sure that when a matter is of concern to the Committee of the whole House or of a Standing Committee, one is not unduly pedantic about rules of order and so forth if they can be stretched to enable the Committee to discuss something that it obviously wants to discuss. One tries to help in any way that one can.
Now and again there are marginal cases, and now and again there is a clear-cut case when one cannot allow a debate or select a particularAmendment. I have no doubt whatever that what the Chairman of Ways and Means said yesterday about the vast majority of Amendments being out of order cannot be anything but immediately acceptable to the House if we wish to uphold its position. It seems that we are straight up against this question: either we believe that those whom we have selected to be Speaker, or Chairman of Ways and Means, or Deputy Chairmen, are aiming to uphold the rules of this House or we do not. If we do not we should ask them to leave those positions. I have no compunction about saying that I know the Chairman of Ways and Means well enough to know that we can trust him on that.
There will always be certain decisions by the Chair that will raise questions in people's minds, and it will be asked why a certain Ruling had to be given. But the moment a Chairman of Ways and Means in a Standing Committee says that Amendments are out of order then, unless the Standing Orders are changed, that must be a binding decision.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman suggestion that Chairman of Committees are infallible, and can never make mistakes?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: No, I am not saying that they are infallible. I am sure that nobody would claim that he is

infallible. I am trying to impress on the House that immense trouble is taken to ensure that a ruling that an Amendment is out of order is made only when it is absolutely necessary. I have in the past sometimes been a little irked by rulings which have been given to my disfavour. That was before I necame a member of the Chairmen's Panel. When one has to undertake the task oneself one gets a slightly different slant on the matter. One realises how expert is the advice that one gets. One also realises how important it is never to pass the buck to advisers, but to take responsibility oneself.
Let me be clear that yesterday the Chairman of Ways and Means took the full blame for any criticism. Naturally, he told the House that he had had the best advice he could get, and took his decision in the light of that advice. Whatever the House may think about this matter and about the Bill which is before us, we have not had the benefit of that expert advice.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I do not intend to argue the case for or against joining the Common Market, nor do I intend to deal with the Bill. I believe that we must look at the Motion before us, which clearly states
That this House considers that the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 29th February … gravely infringes the rights of the House and its powers of decision on the issues raised by the Bill.
That is a very grave charge to level against an occupant of the Chair. It is no good hon. Members thinking that they can ride off by saying "But, of course, this constitutes no personal attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means." The Motion contains as strong a criticism as one could possibly make of the occupant of the Chair. If Opposition Members believe that that should be done, let them do it, but let them not be under any illusion as to the position in which this will put the Chair.
Whatever they may have said they believe, those are the words on the Order Paper. If they vote on this Motion tonight, those are the words on which they will be voting. If that is what they want to do, then they are saying that the Chairman of Ways and Means, having taken the best advice available to him, came to a wrong decision—and, indeed,


did something far worse, namely, gravely infringed the rights of the House. That is a terrible accusation to make against the Chair.

Mr. Powell: I submit to my hon. Friend that he is confusing intention with result. If the Chairman of Ways and Means did this with the object of infringing the rights of the House, that would be a severe and personal censure, but what the House is taking note of is a consequence.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I have lived long enough inside and outside this House to know all about the appalling danger of ever imputing a motive. This is a matter on which one nearly always makes mistakes. This is not a question of the imputation of motive, but I believe that to have such words as these on the Order Paper is to say bluntly, "We do not trust the judgment of the occupant of the Chair".

Dr. John Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman has conceded that even the Chairman is not infallible. If he can make a mistake, what remedy is open to us?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I agree that this is the proper remedy. A Motion has been put down and is being debated.
I am saying that all that I have heard from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and from some of my hon. Friends, leads me to suppose that the real burden of criticism is not on the conduct of the Chair in endeavouring to maintain the Standing Orders of this House; it is a criticism of the Government for having introduced this Bill. That is the burden of many of the arguments that have been put before us today.
If that be the real gravamen of the charge, this Motion is so ill-conceived that it becomes abominable. If the criticism is of the Government for having introduced this sort of Bill—which is a perfectly legitimate basis for criticism at any time—this Motion should have been tabled as a Motion of censure on the Government and not on the Chair, which is what this Motion is.
If right hon. and hon. Members opposite really mean to attack the Government rather than the Chair, I pray that they ask leave to withdraw the Motion

and, for heaven's sake, not take it to a Division.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will forgive me if I do not take up any of his points. I believe that the sense of the House is not as he has said but, rather, that the widespread feeling which has been made remarkably clear from this side of the House is that the Motion is a technical one, and that no personal assault is intended upon the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am sure that he understands that himself.
I wish to make two basic points, the first of which is in line with what the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said. I accept that the basic point in this debate is whether the ground upon which the Chairman of Ways and Means proceeded is correct. It is the clear position of my right hon. and hon. Friends that he proceeded on a false premise and, therefore, that this complaint necessarily follows.
Before turning to that in some detail I wish to discuss the need for approval. The Solicitor-General has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) as having said quite clearly and unambiguously in the debate of 20th January that it was necessary for the House to approve the legislation which would affect our entry into the Community. That was said two days before the Treaty of Accession was signed, and it was said in a situation in which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were deriding the Opposition because of the nature of the Motion that we had chosen to debate, which was to draw attention to the fact that no authoritative treaty had been placed before the House.
We were demanding then exactly what we are demanding now—the right to consider in detail the treaties upon which we were proceeding to enter the Community. In the light of that we must look at the facts.
It is right to make one other point. Perhaps I can refer to something that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mentioned in the same debate. On that occasion I was very much concerned about what might ultimately be involved


in terms of fishery agreements. In the course of his remarks, the right hon. and learned Gentlemen used the word "derogate", and I suggested that possibly he had taken the word from the treaty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head. He did that not to mislead the House but because he took the highly technical view that there was no treaty in existence and that all that he had seen in writing was a draft treaty.
It was no real surprise to me, when I got the published Treaty of Accession and all the ancillary documents, to discover that the word "derogation" appears in the fisheries agreements. I do not say that in any criticism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I think that some criticism is inherent in it; I use that illustration to show the vital importance of this House seeing the detailed texts of what we are to be bound to in law before we take a decision.
I have a feeling that some hon. Members opposite are of the view that we have already approved the texts of these treaties. One thing which has been cleary established is that that is untrue. There has been no approval of the texts of the treaties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that, because the technical point on which he was basing his argument on 20th January was that only a draft treaty was in existence, and that nobody outside the Government had seen it at that stage. Therefore, it is accepted on both sides of the House that at some point approval must be given to the texts of these treaties.
The plea which I make to the House and to the Government is that it surely is not beyond the wit of the collective wisdom of Parliament to devise means whereby we can do what the Solicitor-General suggested—discuss the Clauses of the Bill in Committee along with the texts of the treaties. That was one of the many assurances given to us by the Government.
I now turn to the Ruling itself and the ground upon which it was made, and I particularly want to draw attention to certain points which have not yet been made about the nature, form and concept of the Bill.
It is now accepted on both sides of the House that, whatever was the position before, a legal process is involved in changing our domestic law to apply the provisions of the various treaties through the Treaty of Accession, which is the essential link. To do that, at least three steps have to be taken in law.
The first is to cut a hole—if I may use that analogy—in our legal boundary to admit the importation of Community law. The hole must be big enough to admit what the treaty has agreed. Obviously, to that extent the hole is determined by the terms of the agreement and cannot be varied. However, I will not enter into that matter at the moment. The hole has to be cut in our jurisdiction to let in the new foreign law.
The second essential step is that some content must be allowed to flow through the hole to be embodied into our law—to be transplanted, naturalised, domesticated, or whatever term one cares to use.
Thirdly, there must be consequential changes in the domestic law and institutions of this country to articulate properly with the new law—the bridgehead of European law—which has been imported. This includes the legal "nuts and bolts" about which we have heard so much. However, they come only at the third stage—the stage of articulating. Before that we must have the first two stages.
Perhaps I may change the metaphor slightly and compare the Treaty of Accession with a pipeline coming from Brussels. Under the Treaty it comes right up to our three-mile limit, but there it must stop, because the jurisdiction of Parliament is sovereign to that limit. It must stop there until, first, the domestic law permits entry; secondly, it connects Brussels to our legal mainland so that content can flow, and, thirdly, it provides machinery for the content to flow through into the jurisdiction of this country to be articulated and married to our own institutions. Those three distinct stages must be gone through.
Having regard to that, let us consider what is involved in the Bill. The Bill may or may not be going through each of these three stages—entry, connection and "nuts and bolts". The hon. and learned Member for Northwich said that there were different kinds of approval.


The law knows two kinds of approval —express and implied. The crucial thing is whether, in taking one or more of the steps I have mentioned, the Bill expressly or by implication approves the texts of the treaties. To decide whether or not it does that we have to look at the Clauses as a whole, and at their contents.
Clauses 1, 2 and 3 alone contain the operative mechanism to carry out one or all of the three stages that I have mentioned. Nothing in those Clauses seems to be of such a nature as to reflect clearly the detailed texts of the Treaty of Accession or the treaties to which we are connected by the Treaty of Accession. It therefore seems plain that there is no express approval in the Bill of the terms of the treaties. But it does not follow from that—and this is the fallacy that hon. Gentlemen opposite have fallen for—that there is no implied approval of the terms of the treaties.
If I am correct in my thesis—if it follows that the first three Clauses clearly imply approval of the Treaty of Accession and the texts connected with it —there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Chairman of Ways and Means proceeded upon a false premise and that the basis of his selection is entirely outmoded. We are, therefore, in the position of starting again.
In pressing the argument that the Bill impliedly approves the texts of the treaties, I point out that not only is the Long Title quite decisive on the matter, but I can see no possible way in which there could be an enlargement of the European Community to include the United Kingdom without a hole being broken in the jurisdiction and a bridgehead made between Europe and this country.
One finds that that is so from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in justifying his decision, quoted the first five lines of that memorandum, but paragraph (a), which states one of the main purposes of Part I, says:
to give the force of law in the United Kingdom to present and future Community law …
No more, and no less. The paragraph goes on:
… which under the Community Treaties is directly applicable to Member States;

That is not only cutting a hole in the jurisdiction; it is pouring contents through it. It is doing so not expressly but by the plainest possible implication. There is no escape from the charge which, if it cannot be levelled at the Government today, must be levelled at them on another occasion, that by choosing to introduce legislation in this form not only have they been dishonest and untrue to the undertakings clearly given in the House; they have put the Chairman of Ways and Means and other Chairmen of the Committee in an entirely impossible position. The only honest thing for the Government to do is to withdraw the Bill and start again.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I begin by referring to some of the remarks of the Leader of the House at the outset of the debate on the question of the propriety of the debate itself or the advisability of having such a debate criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I acknowledge to the right hon. Gentleman and the House at once that a Motion criticising the Chair in any way is an extremely important matter about which it is proper that the Leader of the House should give his views and at which we should look with extreme care.
Those of us who tabled the Motion looked at it very carefully. We also looked at the precedents. I cannot say that I looked as far back as the speech I made in 1966, from which the Leader of the House quoted. I was searching not for what I might have said but for other precedents. [Interruption.] If the Leader of the House proved me inconsistent, I do not suppose the House would take that as a particularly grave matter, especially as I think it was Emerson who described consistency as the hobgoblin of feeble minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Little."] It was either "feeble" or "little" minds. Some say Emerson said it, while others attribute it to Carlyle. Let us say it was a mixture of the two.
Possibly it was to my surprise that the words of mine which the Leader of the House quoted seemed rather well phrased and intelligent, and, after all, I was suggesting that it would be an unfair process if any hon. Member used the stick of a Motion against the Chair for the purpose of beating the Government. I


said that if that was the purpose of such a Motion, it would be an improper use of our procedure. I said that in 1966 and I am prepared to repeat it in 1972.
It would be wrong if any hon. Member or group of hon. Members seeking to attack the Government were to adopt such a practice. There are, after all, plenty of opportunities to attack the Government. It would be utterly wrong if in an attempt to obtain a debate one attacked the Chair to secure debating time. That would be reprehensible, and we have not done it in this case.
It is bound to occur in this debate, as in virtually all previous debates of this nature, that when criticisms are made of the Chair they are likely to involve criticisms of the Government at the same time. That, however, does not mean that the immediate purpose of the Motion is to attack the Government. Thus, the Leader of the House was not on a strong point when he dealt with this aspect.
Another aspect of the matter I wish to clear up right away is the question whether we are making a personal attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means. All my hon. Friends who have spoken have, without exception, said that that is not what we are doing or seeking to do. Indeed, it is not open to me to cite what I may have said to the Chairman of Ways and Means when I made representations to him before this debate began. Certainly I made it clear to him in private, as I have done in public, that we were not making a personal criticism.
I wish to put my view on this matter in the words of someone who spoke in a similar debate some years ago. I want the Leader of the House to note these words because I gather that some members of the Government were making statements to the newspapers last night suggesting that we were engaged in an activity that was not proper and that we were engaged in directly challenging the Chairman of Ways and Means in a manner that would be reprehensible.
I therefore adopt some words that were used by the late Sir Winston Churchill when he was engaged in one of these reprehensible debates criticising the Chair. He was so engaged, as Leader of the Conservative Party, in June, 1951, when a Motion was moved criticising the Chair. The suggestion had been made

that because a Motion of such a character had been tabled it was in some way reflecting on the personal character of the Chairman. Sir Winston, then Mr. Churchill, said:
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman"—
he was referring to the then Leader of the House—
was attributing to us a challenge to the bona fides of the Chairman.
That is exactly what some hon. Members have been suggesting in this debate; that in some way, if we press this Motion, we shall be criticising the Chair. It was in that sense that Sir Winston said that
the right hon. and learned Gentleman was attributing to us a challenge to the bona fides of the Chairman.
He went on:
He was saying that in his own mind be would take a different course from that. It is the fact that we have not challenged the bona fides of the Chairman. What does bona fides mean? I know it is Latin but there are enough public school men opposite who ought to be able to translate it.
The calibre has sunk, perhaps, since those days. Sir Winston Churchill continued:
In my belief, it means good faith, common honesty, decent Parliamentary behaviour. Nobody has attempted to challenge that in any way. What we have challenged is his judgment in this matter and the manner in which he interpreted the rules of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 729.]
So I hope that we shall not have any more said by Ministers, either in this debate or to the Press—especially to The Times, later—by any senior Ministers, so-called. I am not sure who are the senior Ministers in the Government and who are the junior ones. But according to The Times, senior Ministers were saying last night that in some way or other we were challenging the very basis of our democratic assembly by having put down a Motion of this character, when the Leader of the House and all senior members of the Government ought to know perfectly well that there is precedent after precedent for the House taking this kind of action to deal with this kind of problem. Indeed, it is precisely because it would be so improper to deal with matters of this kind on extensive points of order, challenging the Chair, that this kind of method of discussion is laid down.

Mr. Whitelaw: First, I am interested that, from what the hon. Gentleman says, apparently my speech must have followed very closely that of one of my distinguished predecessors of the party opposite as Leader of the House. On the second point, I note what the hon. Gentleman says. There is a very important distinction, in that on the vast majority of those occasions to which the hon. Gentleman refers the Motion concerned was not pressed to a Division.

Mr. Foot: I understand the difference, but there were many occasions which I could quote to the Leader of the House on which these Motions were pressed to a Division. I cite the case that I have just mentioned, when Sir Winston Churchill was asked by Labour Members whether he would withdraw the Motion. He said that he would not. He said that he would rather have it negatived than withdraw it. I am giving the Leader of the House the exact circumstances that occurred. All I am saying is that last night senior Ministers of the Government who were talking to The Times did not know whether we would press this to a Division. They still issued the statement to The Times. The Times said:
Some senior ministers bitterly resent the attack Mr. Foot had led from the Opposition front bench on the Chair. They said that if such behaviour was persisted in it would be impossible for parliament to work as a democratic assembly.
Here were we, following exactly the precedents on these matters that had been set from all sides of the House—from Sir Winston Churchill upwards, downwards or whatever way one likes. Ministers really should be more careful about what they say late at night to The Times, especially when at the same time—I may as well dispose of this aspect of the matter also, because I want to come to the more serious aspect— the same senior Ministers who were talking to The Times, after talking for quite a while, saw the rosy side of the picture, and that it might assist the Government. The Times reports:
In the long run the Government will almost certainly benefit.
It was thought that that would mean that there would be a continued severity of the operation of choice of Amendments and that therefore the Government migh benefit. In my opinion, the Government were really very pleased with

what I did yesterday. If that is their attitude, it strikes me as the sourest grape since Aesop invented the fable.
I come to the essential question. We have put our Motion on the Order Paper because we disagree with the view that was taken and the decision that was made by the Chairman of Ways and Means. We do not retreat from that proposition even though much of the argument was bound to range over the question of the nature of the Bill. That was inevitable because we are discussing our rights to debate, the area of debate and the area of amendment. We do not depart from this and everything I have heard in the debate seems to confirm our view. We do not accept the Chairman's view of the Bill. We do not accept the "nuts and bolts" theory, and we do not accept his statement:
It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties which are basic to membership of the Communities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.]
Perhaps I could quote from another document which I understand is a letter written by the Chairman of Ways and Means to some of my hon. Friends who consulted him on the reasons for his choice. In the letter he re-stated why he has not chosen some of the Amendments and why he has ruled them out of order. This explanation is the same as the one that I have quoted but it states the position rather more clearly. He says:
The Amendments marked 'A'.
a whole series of amendments we had put down
on the enclosed amendment paper were ruled out of order because they subject to Parliamentary approval provisions of the Treaties already accepted and therefore fall outside the scope of the Bill, which as I explained in my ruling yesterday, is concerned with the modification of United Kingdom law needed to implement the Treaties.
If that is a justification of the view that the Chairman of Ways and Means takes about the Bill, inevitably, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said today at the beginning of the debate, we are bound to ask the Government questions. We are bound to ask, in order to be able to test whether that view is valid, what the Chairman of Ways and Means means when he talks of "the treaties already accepted". Accepted by whom and when? My right hon.


and learned Friend asked this question of the Leader of the House, and I do not think I would be regarded as disrespectful to the Leader of the House if I said that all of us were not exactly illumined by his reply.
If Amendments are to be ruled out because, in the words of the chairman's first statement:
It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties.
or, as he said in his letter, it is beyond the scope of the Bill because the treaties have already been accepted, we ask when were they accepted? The Leader of the House said it was on 28th October, but we all know that was wrong. Bang goes 28th October; we are all agreed about that. We then come to 20th January, three days before the debate on the Treaty of Accession, which the Government said was a bogus debate. In view of that they can hardly claim it to have been a debate where the House of Commons carried through the process of ratification or acceptance of the treaties. The Motion before the House two or three days before the treaties were actually signed was concerned with the provision of the treaties to the House, and no one can claim that the treaties were accepted then. So 20th January also falls. I suppose that could be argued but if the Leader of the House did not argue it we can be sure it was not a likely runner. [Interruption.] I was trying to put it in the most complimentary manner for the right hon. Gentleman.
It cannot be said that the treaties were accepted on Second Reading, because all of us in the House, whatever position we may occupy, know that Bills are single structures, not things that can be torn apart, separating Second Reading from the rest of the processes. The whole of the provisions in "Erskine May" are designed to illustrate how a Bill hangs together. It has been part of the Government's argument in some cases to claim this. So it cannot be said that the treaties were accepted then.
But we did have an answer from the Leader of the House eventually, when he was pressed. He said, "It would be in the passage of this Bill that the Government would secure the legislative authority to ratify the treaties" If that is correct, the Government should be voting

in our Lobby tonight. It is a confirmation of our criticism of the Chair. We are bound to take account of what the Government have said. They show that in effect they agree with our criticism by underlining that, in fact, the treaties are involved in the Bill. That is what the Leader of the House said.
But if they abandon that position, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently did in another part of his speech, as apparently the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did when he intervened, and as he may do again later, the position of saying that the treaties are involved in the Bill, we must ask them, "When will the House have the chance to examine the treaties in detail?" We were certainly given the impression that we should have that chance.
If the Motion is not carried, if we cannot deal with the matter in the way we propose, we shall have to deal later with the question of the Government's good faith on a different Motion.
It has been made clear during the debate that the Government's interpretation of the Bill and the Chairman's did not accord. They had a different view of its nature. Of course, we must not exclude the possibility that both the Chairman and the Government are wrong. That is perfectly possible, and may well be the position. In pressing our case in this debate, we are certainly not withdrawing in any sense from the claim that the Chairman's Ruling could have been made differently in the light of the nature of the Bill as it had been described to us, as we thought it to be, and as the Government themselves possibly thought it might be. But the Government should then have faced the question that we face as an Opposition of what was to be done about the situation. We considered it.
We did not propose a substantive Motion criticising the Chair at once. What we proposed when we raised the matter yesterday was in full accordance with the normal practice of the House, to deal with the problem in an orderly way. We did not even say immediately that we thought the Chairman's decision was wrong and, therefore, that we would attack it immediately. When we raised the point of order at the beginning of the proceedings on the Bill, we asked


the Chairman to look at the matter afresh and make a fresh statement to the House. The Government would have been well advised to support that appeal and say, "We think it is a reasonable suggestion, and perhaps there can be consultations". I am only new to this game, but there are such things as the "usual channels" in this House. My experience of them is that they are not so good on procedure as some other people are, but even so they can learn and be taught. We could have had a discussion following my proposition.
Indeed, yesterday I was in my most generous mood because I suggested to the Chairman of Ways and Means that he might wish to reconsider and make a fresh statement about how he should deal with this matter. I even conceded—if one can call it a concession—that we should proceed with the discussion of the first Amendments so that he might have time to reconsider. We might have done that if the Government had accepted my proposition. But the Government were most ill-advised, particularly in view of the whole history of the matter. They must have been aware of all the statements which had been made by some of their number, to which I called attention yesterday, and more of which have been unearthed today—statements, for example, by the Solicitor-General, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. A wealth of assurances had been given to the House that it would have the fullest opportunity to discuss all these matters.
I am not arguing the merits of that case now, because we shall deal with it later. But I argue that the Government were aware of the situation. Yet they come to the House today and, through the Leader of the House, tell us that they were as surprised as we were by the choice of Amendments and that they did not know what kind of response the Chair was going to make. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be impossible, even by telepathic means, for the Government to discover what might be in the mind of the Table Office, although I must say that when a Leader of the House tells me that, the one reply I can make is that the resources of the Table Office are as much open to the

Government as they are to members of the Opposition.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Did the hon. Gentleman take the trouble to find out whether he was out of order with his Amendments? Any person of normal experience would have done so, in which case he would have found out that they were out of order.

Mr. Foot: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we did, and it fortifies the argument I am making. It would be wrong of any hon. Member to give a detailed report of what officials of the Table Office have said on particular occasions. Obviously, they give their advice on a tentative basis and are bound to say that the final decision must rest with the Chairman of Ways and Means. But, of course, we took the precaution of asking for advice and guidance by the Table Office. We were treated, as I said yesterday, with the utmost courtesy. I am not blaming the Table Office at all for what has happened, because the nature of the Bill is complicated. There may be a few hon. Members who, after listening to the debate, think that it is simple, but it is certainly very complicated.
On the whole question of treaty-making powers, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and others have shown that, of course, the House has on numerous occasions insisted on amending provisions in a Bill which are supposed to ratify a treaty. It has been done time and again. The Solicitor-General knows that well enough. Perhaps that is why the Government are keeping him out of this debate.

Mr. Rees-Davies: What is the answer? The Amendments were out of order, and the hon. Gentleman knew it.

Mr. Foot: I have given the hon. Gentleman his answer perfectly clearly. As I am sure will be borne out by anyone who cares to examine the facts, it was only yesterday, when we got the final choice, that we knew for sure that certain matters were out of order. It was only when the Chairman of Ways and Means made his statement to the House that we knew the reason on which he was founding the argument, and it is only


now when we have received this letter that we have had further elaboration.
The Government would have been well advised to accept the perfectly reasonable proposition we put yesterday. If that had happened there could have been discussions with the Chair, through the usual channels, a statement could have been made, maybe we would have liked it, maybe not, maybe we would still have had this debate or further discussions, but at any rate we would have had the chance of looking at the matter in that way.
The Chairman of Ways and Means was mistaken in saying that he would not consider it in that sense. That is why we proposed this Motion. I can remember many Bills on which this has occurred. I still think that that would have been the best way to deal with this. What will be the result if this Motion is carried? The result will be that there will have to be discussions. We would make it perfectly clear that we were not challenging the personal integrity of the Chairman, as we have made that clear throughout. We would have discussions on the problem facing the House of how we are to secure what we were promised; namely, detailed debate on all these treaties and matters, which is now to be denied us.

Mr. John Gorst: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said about the Chair with his statement on commercial television yesterday evening "We have out-manoeuvred the Chair"?

Mr. Foot: I was asked on television a hypothetical question—what I would do in a match between Everton and Liverpool. Would I think it a good idea to attack the referee? I said that if the referee had decided that goals could be shot only through Liverpool's goal we would have to do something about it. Believe me, with Liverpool I know the matter would have to be raised with more than a substantive Motion.
There are two ways of dealing with this proposition. If the Government accept our Motion it will be accepted that we regard the rules and the consequences for the House as infringements of its liberties and we shall have to

devise a new way of dealing with these Measures; we shall have discussions about it. If the Government, having partly supported our case, having claimed at one time that the nature of the Bill was as we had claimed, now turn a somersault because they think they see an advantage in pressing the matter forward in this way and refuse these discussions, they will be convicting themselves of having sought to deceive the House. That is a matter with which we cannot deal tonight, but if the Government vote against this Motion we shall certainly want to deal with it next week because we will not be deprived of our right to debate these matters. No Government will deny us the right, no Minister, no Chairman—

Mr. Rees-Davies: No rule of order.

Mr. Foot: Indeed, the rules of order were devised to protect Members of this House, not to foil us. We are refusing to accept the proposals for dealing with this matter which the Government have accepted. I urge them to accept our Motion. If they do not, we propose to continue the fight to ensure that none of the rights of this House shall be taken away from us.

9.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have had a characteristic and formidable speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) indulging in his usual sport of attacking the referee. Unfortunately he is apt to go on after the whistle has blown. He was fair enough to say in 1966, and to repeat it in 1972, that it was unfair to use the stick of a Motion against the Chair for the purpose of beating the Government. He emphasised—as of course must be the case—that the immediate purpose of the Motion is not to attack the Government but to censure the Chair. At the same time he made it clear that the attack on the Chair is not directed at the bona fides of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but that the Opposition are, in effect, challenging his judgment, his ruling, his authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I think it must be so. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael


Foot) was listened to—except for a moment or two—in almost complete silence. Is it impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be listened to with the same courtesy?

Mr. Rippon: We must accept. Mr. Speaker, that the Chairman of Ways and Means exercises his judgment and authority in a quasi-judicial manner, as clearly set out at page 207 of "Erskine May", which describes the Rulings of the Chair as being parallel to the decisions of judges in the courts. I quite understand why we had the points of order yesterday and in today's debate, because it is the declared object of many opponents of our entry into the Communities to use every means to oppose the Bill. That is a perfectly legitimate thing for them to seek to do, but I am astonished—and I think that the House will be astonished —that the opportunity to debate the Bill and to object to it has turned into an attack upon the Chair.
I will come back to the comments which have been made upon the conduct of the Government, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, are perhaps inevitable in a Motion of this kind, but I think that we must first address ourselves to the Motion and recognise that it is a valued and important part of our traditions in the House to leave it to our elected officers and Chairmen impartially to conduct all our proceedings.
Certainly, for the Government, I can say that we shall have no part in the criticism of the exercise of the responsibility and the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means, which he has applied in accordance with the rules of the House. I am sure that the great majority of hon. Members—on both sides of the House, perhaps—will deplore the attack on the Chair which is embodied in this Motion, which is holding up the substantive debate on the details of this important Bill.
It will not escape notice either here or outside that what a minority of Members is seeking to do all the time is to block the procedure needed to give effect to the principle of entry into the Communities, which was approved by a majority of 112 on 28th October last. They are not willing to give effect in any way to the principle of the Bill as approved by this House in the Second

Reading debate. I think that that follows whatever interpretation is put on the principles in "Erskine May" which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and which, of course, are a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make no attempt to reconcile the fact that the Government have said that this Bill is a Bill which the House has to approve, whereas the Chairman of Ways and Means says it is not?

Mr. Rippon: I will come to that, but I thought it essential to make it clear at the outset that we are dealing with a Motion which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said is intended to attack the Chair and not the Government because there are other ways—he said—of censuring the Government. Nevertheless, it is clearly the wish of the House that I should take this opportunity to clarify the nature and the purpose of the Bill, and in particular to answer the charges that the Government have in some way misled or deliberately set out, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) seemed to suggest, to restrict or inhibit debate on proper Amendments.
I utterly repudiate those charges. The Bill's purpose is to enable the United Kingdom to accede to the treaties. It was drafted to do what was necessary to make those changes in our domestic law which will be called for when we are members of the Communities.
It seems to me that the Chairman of Ways and Means was right when he said:
The Bill, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, is one which makes the legislative changes which will enable the United Kingdom to comply with the obligations entailed by membership of the…Communities."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.]
He then set them out. In so far as Amendments would prevent the United Kingdom from doing so, then they may be properly held by the Chair to negative the principle accepted by the House. That is for the Chair to decide. It is not really for me or the Government to pass any comment on that.
But this does not mean that there are not many other Amendments which are in order and which we should proceed to discuss as soon as possible. There is a number of important Amendments on the Order Paper. I know that yesterday—

Mr. Elysian Morgan: rose—

Mr. Rippon: Perhaps it would be easier if I answer the point about what exactly is involved and what we have told the House about the treaty-making process.
As I explained on 20th January:
When a treaty can be brought into effect only by an alteration in the domestic law of the United Kingdom, or when it involves the grant of new powers to the Crown, or the undertaking of financial commitments of the kind described by the right hon. Member for Stepney, parliamentary consent has to be sought by the executive to the necessary legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 697.]
That is precisely what the Bill seeks. As I explained when I opened the debate on Second Reading, it does so in a constitutional form. There has never been any doubt about this.
On 20th January we had a long and detailed debate in which we went into the whole question of how the Crown is omnicompetent in the making of a treaty, that is was not normal practice for the treaty to be laid before the House before signature, that there was, however, a period between signature and ratification, when either one acted under the Ponsonby Rules procedure or, alternatively, introduced the legislation necessary to incorporate into domestic law the changes necessary to enable one to fulfil one's obligations under the treaty and so to proceed to ratification.
That was a long debate. When I opened the debate on Second Reading I was accused of being rather legalistic, but I went to some trouble to explain exactly why the Bill had been prepared in the form in which it was before the House. That was, of course, open to discussion.
As I said on 15th February:
Some treaties call for no changes in our domestic law. In other treaties, as in this case, each provision has to be scrutinised to see what change in the law is needed, if any.
The object of the legislation is, therefore, to make changes which need to be made in

our domestic law in order to comply with obligations deriving from membership of the Communities, and also to exercise the rights of membership."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 271.]
I went on to explain how, ever since 1967, not only from the White Paper on the constitutional and legal implications but from the then Prime Minister's speech on 8th May it had been obvious what we would have to do.
To some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this has always been an objectionable principle. They have always fought against this principle. But if one wants to accede to the treaties, one has to accept it. That is what I believe the House accepted by a majority on 28th October.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that there is no shred of judicial authority for the proposition that a treaty cannot be amended by this House, that there is nothing in the writing of learned authors to that effect and that in a matter so momentous in its effects as this it is truly monstrous that a precedent should have been created in an absolutely unprecedented situation?

Mr. Rippon: We do not need to refer to learned authors. We know what the position is. The hon. Member yesterday quoted the judgment of Lord Atkin, to which I replied. He explained that a Government, if they were wise, found whether Parliament approved the principle of a treaty. That is necessary because signature normally takes place before Parliament has seen the treaty. So one tells Parliament about the substance of the treaty and it is published after signature. There are various ways in which Parliament can express views before ratification, and it is pointed out that Parliament can oppose or reject but it cannot take bits and pieces of a treaty. This is all perfectly clear. I went into some detail on Second Reading to explain Clause 2, not to hide in any way the implications of Clause 2 and what it meant in constitutional terms to be prepared to accept in this country the direct application of Community law. Everyone knew perfectly well the form of the Bill we were to approve at the end of the Second Reading debate.
I think the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South was wrong


to suggest, as he did, that the House was not told about how or when treaties are approved, because that was the whole purpose of our debate on the 20th January, and we referred back to it on Second Reading. He was also wrong to talk about the need for a ratifying Statute as such which might afford opportunities to amend the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) dealt with that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is not a general or even a frequent practice to submit treaties for the approval of the House in the form of legislation. There are many examples of that. There are the United Nations Act, 1946, and the E.F.T.A. Treaty Measures of 1960. Both those simply gave effect to the changes which were necessary in our law to comply with our obligations. It is unthinkable that we should have to consider in detail the United Nations Charter with a view to approving this little bit or amending that little bit. Parliament can always either oppose or reject—in other words, refuse approval—but it does not have to approve the text of a treaty before it is signed under the competence of the Crown.
There is, of course, an exception to that which might be thought to prove the rule. That is the convention—and it is no more than a convention, although some of the authorities consider it binding—that treaties involving the cession of territory are normally laid before the House. All this is set out in Lord McNair's "Law of Treaties", but I believe some hon. Members have misinterpreted the substance of Lord Atkin's judgment. It is nowhere suggested there, and no one on this side of the House has suggested, that the treaties themselves can be amended.
Now, perhaps, I ought to deal with charges made against others of my hon. Friends. I submit that there is no difference between what I said on 20th January and 15th February and statements made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Solicitor-General. The Financial Secretary on 22nd February was dealing with a specific and limited point which I dealt with in the quotation I have made from my speech on Second Reading. The point which he made was that any Amendment to a Bill must be within the

Financial Resolution. Hence, no Amendments could be moved in Committee which could increase the charge covered in the Financial Resolution.
We were dealing with the scope of the Financial Resolution. That was quite apparent from the extract from the Financial Secretary's speech quoted by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale yesterday. He quoted the Financial Secretary as saying, in so many words, that nothing in the resolutions would prevent hon. Members from making objections or moving Amendments to remove, curtail or impose conditions or restrictions on those provisions at the appropriate stage of the progress of the Bill through Parliament.
The Financial Secretary was making no comment on what class of Amendment could or would be selected. There was nothing to be found in his general comments which could be a matter of criticism of the Government or of the Chair. As it happens the financial Clauses, as I indicated yesterday, are one of the matters where the modalities of our adaptation to Community obligations can be considered. The method by which we pay our subscription is a matter which has already been raised in debate.
The Solicitor-General pointed out on 20th January that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong that legislation to implement a treaty should allow no scope for amendment, but the reference was to the scope for amendment to legislation, not to the scope for amendment of the treaty itself. The treaty has already been concluded. Parliament can oppose or reject it; we cannot amend it. The Government have followed precisely, at every stage, the programme which the Prime Minister announced to the House on 17th June. He then promised that Parliament would be invited to consider and pass the consequential legislation. The Bill is not concerned with aspects of the treaty which do not have consequences for United Kingdom law. The Solicitor-General has rightly pointed out that the Bill has to be understood in the light of the treaties. Equally, the effect of the treaties on United Kingdom law is precisely reflected in the scope of the Bill.
I went into very great detail in my speech in the Second Reading debate. I did not rehearse all the arguments that


we had in July and October. I addressed myself almost exclusively to the form and content of the Bill and to the reasons why nobody should be surprised in any way by its form and content, because we have known this all along. We have given no undertaking which could be taken to imply that the scope of the Bill, and so the debate could, or would, go wider than the views that I expressed in January and again in February and which we have expressed throughout.
I submit that the Bill follows normal constitutional practice throughout. Perhaps it is worth remembering what we were deciding when we approved the principles of the Bill on Second Reading. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members appeared today to have some doubts about what they were doing, but those who voted against the Second Reading were out-and-out objectors to the Bill. They knew that if we were to accede to the treaties we had to have a Bill in this form—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In the course of that debate nobody seriously challenged the form in which we presented the Bill. In particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has never been exactly a devotee of the principle behind this Bill, said in the debate on 15th February:
If the Bill is harsh it is because the requirements of the treaty are harsh. If the Bill erodes the power and purpose of Parliament and makes deep and unprecedented inroads into our democratic institutions, it is because these things are a condition of entry.
He does not like the conditions, though others have accepted them. He said:
On that account it may perhaps be an odious Bill, but at any rate it is an honest Bill. Clause 2 is drafted, and impeccably drafted, to give precise effect to Article 189 of the treaty.
He then said
The Clause has the virtue of honesty. The obligation is clear, and effect is clearly given to it. I am against Clause 2 but not because of its drafting. I am against it for the same reason as I am against Article 189. I am against it for the same reason as I was in 1961 and 1967.
Not everyone has been so consistent, if I may say so. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
We cannot logically accept entry and reject its requirements.

That is what this House has to accept if it wishes to give effect to its decision of 28th October. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
To dress up the obligation in a cloud of words and schedules would have been possible as an exercise in draftsmanship, but to set up word for word and syllable for syllable what is in the Community regulations…could not lessen one jot or one tittle the surrender of sovereignty and the subordination of our law. It could, at most, conceal it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 314–5.]
What we have done in this Bill is to make perfectly clear to Parliament and the public what is involved by our accession to the Community. At no stage have we misled the House. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) did not make a complaint about the form of the Bill. What he said was:
Never till now"—
that is, until the moment of Second Reading—
has the House of Commons had placed before it proposed legislation on which it must take a definitive view and on which it must envisage as a practical issue what it will mean for this country if we accede to the Community. The Bill, whatever its defects, does manifest some of the major consequences." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 699.]
My right hon. Friend has never taken the view that the Government have disguised the implications for this House and the country. We have set out clearly the obligations, just as we have set out clearly the manifest advantages that passing this Bill and acceding to these treaties will bring in terms of work, higher standards, peace and security, not only for us but for Europe. We have done all that. We have set up the obligations and we have set out the advantages. We are not open to a charge of bad faith.

Mr. William Molloy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be introducing a new dictum. He declares that because, in his view, the Bill is honest, it cannot be amended —[Interruption.] That is what he said. Does not he accept that the only way to resolve the dilemma that now exists between hon. Members in all parts of the House and the Chair is to let the people decide by a General Election?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood what has


been going on all this time. We have been accused of acting dishonestly, misleading the House, and not telling the House what the form of the Bill would be. I said that not only have we had tributes to our honesty; we have had tributes to our clarity. We have not deceived the House.
Could the Bill have been drafted in a different way? Could we have had an enormous Bill? It would have served no useful purpose to have drafted a bad Bill. It would have served no useful purpose to have drafted an obscure Bill. What everyone in this House has to recognise is that a point has been reached when a determination on principle has to be made: either we are for entry into the Communities or we are not. If we are for entry into the Communities, we have to accept Clause 2. The House can reject Clause 2. If it does, it prevents our fulfilling our obligations under the treaty and, in effect, prevents our ratification—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made it clear to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Rippon: I gather that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), to whom I thought I was giving way, wishes me to take notice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend implying, from what he has just said about Clause 2, that in his view Clause 2 is not amendable?

Mr. Rippon: I did not imply that at all. I simply said that if we took that course that would be the result. It is not for me to say what Amendments are or are not in order. However, what is already clear from the Order Paper is that there are a large number of Amendments which are in order, at any rate, on Clause 1, and we shall come to Clause 2 in due course. We should now be getting down, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept, to the real business of considering the substantive Amendments which have been put down and which are

in order. They are, if I may say so, Amendments to the right Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, when he wound up the Second Reading debate on 17th February, we would have served no useful purpose by producing a Bill in a different form. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend said:
There has been a great deal of discussion of the nature and construction of this Bill, and rightly so, because it is concerned, as the hon. Gentleman said, with the rights of this House and how these can be safeguarded in the context of our being a member of the Community. We naturally attach great importance to that, but, as to the Bill, there seems to be genuine misunderstanding of the constitutional position. The hon. Gentleman was not prepared to acknowledge the White Paper of 1967. In fact the constitutional position has not changed in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961 when it was very fully discussed in this House time and again.
So it has gone on. It has always been known what would be required.
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
There have been various suggestions on how this should be handled. One suggestion is that the whole of the legislation which might be affected by any of the instruments should be re-enacted by Parliament. This would have the effect trim the whole of the legislation on each of these subjects could then he amended and dealt with again: but the one part which could not be dealt with would be the new part which comes in the Community law. Therefore, what the House of Commons would be asked to do, what Parliament would be asked to do, would be to re-enact all those matters which presumably we would not wish to change, but rather to keep, because they are our existing law; but we would not be able to change that part which arose from Community law. I do not think that to ask Parliament to take on that sort of burden is a sensible solution to the problem with which we are faced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 747–8.]
We discussed all these matters, and nothing has been said by the Government which is in any way inconsistent with what we have said from the beginning. In July, in October, in January and in the Second Reading debate, we always made clear what the parliamentary processes would be, and the Prime Minister's statement on 17th June, 1971, which was welcomed on both sides, described the Bill as the fifth stage of these processes and the last before ratification of the treaty. The purpose of the Bill is to permit that ratification, and in the Second Reading debate the House gave its approval to that purpose.
However that may be, we have to come back at the end of the day to the form of the Motion which, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said, is a grave Motion of censure on the Chair. We on this side of the House, and, I am sure, many right hon. and hon. Members opposite, believe that the Chairman should be upheld in the way in which he has done his duty. After all, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has said that he is not in any way challenging the bona fides of the Chair. We should repose our confidence in the

Chair. I hope that the Motion will be withdrawn. Otherwise, it should be rejected.

Question put,
That this House considers that the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 29th February to the Committee of the whole House sitting on the European Communities Bill gravely infringes the rights of the House and its powers of decision on the issues raised by the Bill, and that, therefore, a full new selection of Amendments should be proposed:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pym.]

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 270.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Allen, Scholefield
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ewing, Harry
Kelley, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lamond, James


Booth, Albert
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Latham, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, [...]ay (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gourlay, Harry
McCann, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McGuire, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McManus, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hattersley, Roy
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Heffer, Eric S.
Marsden, F.


Davidson, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Davis, Clinton (Hackney)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milan,, Bruce


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward


Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Janner, Greville
Molloy, William




Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)




Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Richard, Ivor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tomney, Frank


Murray, Ronald King
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Gordon
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tuck, Raphael


Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Roper, John
Varley, Eric G.


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin


Oram, Bert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orbach, Maurice
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wallace, George


Oswald, Thomas
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weltzman, David


Padley, Walter
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Sillars, James
Whitehead, Philip


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Skinner, Dennis
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Small, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Tom Pendry.


Rankin, John
Swain, Thomas



Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Taverne, Dick





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Goodhart, Philip


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cockeram, Eric
Goodhew, Victor


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooke, Robert
Gorst, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Coombs, Derek
Gower, Raymond


Astor, John
Cooper, A. E.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gray, Hamish


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Costain, A. P.
Grieve, Percy


Balnlel, Lord
Critchley, Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Batsford, Brian
Crowder, F. P.
Grylls, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Curran, Charles
Gummer, Selwyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gurden, Harold


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Blaker, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boscawen, Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Bray, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Hay, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Buck, Antony
Fidler, Michael
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Holland, Philip


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holt, Miss Mary


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hooson, Emlyn


Carlisle, Mark
Fortescue, Tim
Hordern, Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Fowler, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Channon, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gardner, Edward
Hunt, John


Churchill, W. S.
Gibson-Watt, David
Iremonger, T. L.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
James, David



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)




Jennings, J. C. (Burton)







Jessel, Toby
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mudd, David
Soref, Harold


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Spence, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Sproat, Iain


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Steel, David


Kimball, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kinsey, J. R.
Osborn, John
Stokes, John


Kirk, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sutcliffe, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


Knox, David
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Lord
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Lane, David
Peel, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Langford-Holt, Sir John

Tebbit, Norman


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Percival, Ian
Temple John M.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pounder, Rafton
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorpe Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tilney, John


Luce, R. N.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trew, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tugendhat, Christopher


McCrindle, R. A.
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McLaren, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


McMaster, Stanley
Redmond, Robert
Waddington, David


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walters, Dennis


Madel, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, Dame Irene


Maginnis, John E.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maude, Angus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilkinson, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rost, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Royle, Anthony
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Worsley, Marcus


Molyneaux, James
Scott, Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Money, Ernle
Scott-Hopkins, James
Younger, Hn. George


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sharples, Richard



Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles



Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, St. George

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boscawen, Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Bossom, Sir Clive


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bowden, Andrew


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braine, Bernard


Astor, John
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Balniel, Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.







Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Cary, Sir Robert
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pardoe, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Peel, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Coombs, Derek
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Cormack, Patrick
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Curran, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Lord
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Soref, Harold


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward
Macmillan. Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David
Steel, David


Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gorst, John
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gower, Raymond
Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stokes, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mawby, Ray
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sutcliffe, John


Green, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Gurden, Harold
Molyneaux, James
Temple, John M.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernie
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.








Tilney, John
Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Trew, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tugendhat, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark


Turton, Bt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus


van Straubenzee, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Younger, Hn. George


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wiggin, Jerry



Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Fred
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Henry
Leonard, Dick


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan


Ashton, Joe
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnes, Michael
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Baxter, William
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackie, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McManus, Frank


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hardy, Peter
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Coleman, David
Hilton, W. S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Concannon, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward


Conlan, Bernard
Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Moyle, Roland


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Greville
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
O'Malley, Brian


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Suiton)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Paget, R. T.


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Pendry, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Pentland, Norman


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.


Edelman, Maurice
Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamond, James
Prescott, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)









Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin


Price, William (Rugby)
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Probert, Arthur
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Richard, Ivor
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rose, Paul B.
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Torney, Tom



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Sillars, James
Varley, Eric G

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 29th February.]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION

10.25 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment is No. 96, in page 2, line 5, after 'and', insert
'subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members.
Before I call upon the hon. Gentleman to move it, I think the Committee will be glad to know that I have selected another Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before the Committee gets too excited, I should add that I would have selected it yesterday but for the fact that the Amendment which went with it was a paving Amendment. The Amendment which now goes with it means that it is complete. If the Committee wishes to discuss that Amendment with No. 96, it may do so. It is Amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'the', together with Amendment No. 99, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (3), both also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Sir Robert. We are, of course, most grateful for the extremely small mercy of the selection of the extra Amendment. Perhaps it might be an encouragement to put down another Motion in order to see whether we cannot get another Amendment selected. But that is not the point I wish to raise.
I rise to ask whether it would be in order for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to consider, in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that it

is usually much better to start on Amendments at a different hour, whether it would not be advisable in the interests of the Committee to report Progress and consider the matter further.
There are many aspects of the debate that we have just had in the House which I would have thought the Government would wish to consider. I would have thought that the Government themselves would have accepted that the best way to deal with the situation would be to have second thoughts on what has been discussed and decide how to proceed. We could either discuss the proposition to report Progress or have the opportunity of carrying it in a Division. We could then consider the matter at a later date after the Government themselves had been able to consider the position, both in the light of what was said in the debate and in the light of the debates which will certainly take place on this matter next week. Would it not be advisable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak in that sense?

10.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): As the House has just rejected one Motion and passed another so that we can get on with the Amendments it seems reasonable that we should now make some progress. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said yesterday that we had to have the debate today because what would follow would be minor technical Amendments. I should have thought we could have got rid of one or two or those.

Mr. Foot: We will certainly not tolerate any flippancy on this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to start applying his mind to the details of the Bill. We will not have any of his slap-happy methods here. I am extremely sorry that the Government take this view. It would be better, Sir Robert, if you would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in view of the lateness of the hour and the implications of the debate that we have just had. It would be a wise course in the interests of the Committee if such a Motion were accepted. You could accept such a Motion from me or a member of the Government.

The Chairman: Order. At this early stage of the proceedings, I could not accept such a Motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I hope we shall be able to make some progress.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Could I adduce a reason in support of my hon. Friend's proposal that this debate should now be adjourned?

The Chairman: No, I cannot accept that as a point of order. I have ruled that I cannot accept a Motion at this stage. I hope no one will seek to change that, because it is my decision.

Mr. English: If you will allow me, Sir Robert, you will find that I have a well-founded point of order. It is the custom of this House, derived from the ancient practices of every court in the land, that we should always have before us all documents necessary for our purposes. The Leader of the House has promised that we would have them. I have mentioned this once to him privately and twice publicly, but still it has not been done. In this case I mention the specific nature of the documents—

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. What the Leader of the House or anyone else produces by way of documents is not for the Chair. I hope that hon. Members in seeking to raise points of order will come quickly to the point so that we may begin to make progress. It is the duty laid upon me expressly by the House that I do the best I can to see that progress is made.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Although it is the case, as the Chancellor of the Duchy said flippantly a few moments ago, that two Divisions have taken place after Ten o'clock, the first rejecting our Motion and the second carrying the Government's Motion, in the first Division a large number of Members, albeit a minority, expressed support for the view that you as Chairman of Ways and Means had committed what was considered to be a grave error of judgment. Since that has been the expression of view of a large number of hon. Members, may I ask you whether—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. O'Malley: Hon. Gentlemen must let me put this point.
May I ask you, Sir Robert—I should be surprised if it were not the case—are you not as Chairman of Ways and Means, particularly in view of what the Leader of the House said this afternoon, going to give the House, before we proceed to any other business, a statement of the situation as you see it? Second, since a large number of hon. Members have, through their votes, expressed doubt about the judgment of the Chair in selecting these Amendments, should you not consider your own position before proceeding?

The Chairman: I cannot accept that as a point of order. Nor can I accept any point of order concerning any business which has been terminated by the House. In other words, any consideration of whether or not amendments are in order before the first Amendment to be called I cannot take as a point of order, because the House has in its wisdom forestalled me on that and made a decision that what I did was the right thing. Therefore, like everyone else, I have to abide by the decisions of the House.
I hope very much that hon. Members will not seek to go back on what the House has already decided. This is an assembly which obeys its rules on the whole. Sometimes hon. Members get a little worked up. I know that there has been a great deal of feeling over what has gone on today and yesterday, but I appeal to the Committee, in all seriousness. Hon. Members have had their say, the House has come to decision on what has been done, and it is our duty to proceed with our work.
If points of order arise on what we are going to do, the Committee knows that I shall be perfectly ready to listen to them, but we must finish with what we have decided already. That is the end of it so far as the Chair is concerned, and I am sure that all hon. Members will support me in that.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is not the House in a very difficult position—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the sense that it is obvious that a very large body of hon. Members


—I am not now discussing what has gone on before—consider that they cannot discuss in any depth the issues involved in the Common Market because of the nature of the Bill? In view of that, it is clear that there may well be a body of opinion on both sides of the House that the Government should withdraw this Bill. If they are not prepared to do so, there may be some sort of Motion urging the Government to do just that. In those circumstances, is it not silly and stupid for the Committee to try to proceed to discuss the Bill when half the House at least is totally opposed to its very nature—

The Chairman: Order. I have got exactly what the hon. Member means. I am afraid that that, too, is not a point of order for me. The Committee must realise that the House has come to a decision and decided that the business of the Committee must proceed. If we do not obey the decisions of the House, we are unfaithful to ourselves as good democrats. So we must make some progress with the Bill this evening. That is the decision of the House, taken by a majority.
The minority know that no Government or parliamentary system is possible unless the minority abide by the decisions of the majority after they have had every opportunity to ventilate the issue and to say what they believe right. I appeal with all the strength I can command to hon. Members to let this Bill proceed, as is the decision of the whole House. I hope sincerely that I shall not be disappointed.

Mr. Robert Mellish: In the light of the appeal you have just made, Sir Robert, may I put this point of view? I asume that it must be put as a point of order. The Leader of the House must know, because he has held the position which I hold, that after all that has happened in the last two days the Committee is hardly in a position to discuss this Bill with the lucidity that it demands.
You have rightly made an appeal, Sir Robert, but may I say to the Leader of the House through you—[Hon. Members: "No."] I am not concerned about back-benchers opposite. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman through you Sir Robert, that to start now on the first

Amendment to be called by the Chair would not be satisfactory. I am not quite sure what he means by "progress", but would it not be better to start on it at an agreed time next week? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite must listen. If this House is to conduct its business properly there must be understanding on both sides.
In the light of this and to get the best discussion, would it not be better for the Leader of the House to consider that if we are to make progress, which the Chair rightly demands and which the Government have a right to expect, we should discuss in the right atmosphere and move on to a debate next week? If he denies this, the right hon. Gentleman will know that our discussion of this Amendment will lead to a very long debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that I once held the position which he holds. Yes, I did, and I think I did so in the same way that he does; I abided by the rules of the House and decisions of the Chair. This House has pased a Motion to continue progress on the Bill, and you, Sir Robert, have made perfectly clear that progress can go on. It can be no part of the duty of the Leader of the House to go back on a Motion passed by the House or on a Ruling which you have given. This House could not continue to exist if the Leader of the House acted in that way, and I could not do so.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point which the Leader of the House has made, he suggested that the House has just passed a Motion which almost instructs the Committee to proceed with the Bill. That is not at all what the Motion said. It said:
That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with…".

An Hon. Member: "Will be".

Mr. Foot: It says not "will be" but "may be". You, Sir Robert, suggested that we had passed a Motion saying that it was the will of the House that we should now proceed with this debate; but that is not the case. The House has not passed such a Motion. All that it has passed is a Motion which says that we


may proceed with the Bill. The Government have a majority and can try to do so if they want, but how far that will assist them is another question. We suggest that it would be better for orderly discussion of this Bill, which is of supreme importance, that the Government should resolve that when eventualy we start on the Committee stage it should be at a better time. I suggest to the Leader of the House that he certainly would not be defying the will of the House if he did that, because the Motion was not that we must proceed with this Bill but that we may do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

10.45 p.m.

The Chairman: A number of hon. Members are rising to their feet. I do not know whether they have their names to an Amendment.

Mr. Douglas Jay: May I make this submission and appeal to you, Sir Robert, in the interests of orderly debate and in the interests of the Chair? Your announcement, which changes your decision on one Amendment fortifies my point. The House has now rejected a Motion which was critical of the Chair. We now find ourselves in the situation that a number of Amendments have been ruled out of order, and a great many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not know on what grounds they have been ruled out of order. There is, therefore, a clear clash of opinion in the House as to the proper way in which this Committee stage should be conducted. I have in my hand—

The Chairman: Order. I have already ruled that I cannot entertain any points of order on Amendments up to Amendment No. 49, because the House has made a decision on that and the House is superior to me. Therefore, I cannot entertain any discussion whatever upon the Amendments before Amendment No. 49.

Mr. Jay: What I was about to submit to you, Sir Robert, and to the Leader of the House was the following. In view of this situation, which is clearly unsatisfactory to a large section of the House and to yourself, would it not be in your interests and in the interests of orderly debate if you were to respond to the appeal which has been made today from

both sides of the House that we should take a certain amount of time to see whether it is possible to find a solution about the conduct of the Committee stage? Surely it would be unsatisfactory to proceed in an orderly way now, with all these questions unresolved.

The Chairman: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no power to do anything that he says. I am bound by what the House has decided. I am bound by my duties as expressly put on me by the House to get the Committee to work on the Bill. If the Committee will not work on the Bill, it will not work on the Bill, but it is my duty to do my best to see that it does, and that is what I propose to go on doing, no matter how long it takes.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I put a double point of order to you on the announcement that you have made concerning the new and additional selection that you have made. As I understood it, you intimated that you now intended to call Amendment No. 49 and to take another Amendment with it. I understand that you also suggested to the Committee—though I believe this would be in the hands of the Committee—that this should be taken together with Amendment No. 96 and those grouped with it in your previous selection.
If I am right in my understanding, I would wish to put two points to you. The first is that these two groups of Amendments, the new pair and the old group of five or six, raise substantially different matters which, I submit, it is highly inconvenient should be taken together since this would not lead to a satisfactory debate. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why split hairs?"] I am not sure that my hon. Friend who talks about splitting hairs has looked at the Amendments or given them any study. If he had done so, he would have been able to satisfy himself that I am correct in saying that they raise substantially different matters.
My second submission is linked with that. As you know, Sir Robert, when the selection of the Chair is notified, as your selection was yesterday morning, hon. Members who wish to take part in proceedings on the Bill are enabled and, indeed, obliged thereby to concentrate upon the Amendments which they have


reason to suppose will be called. Therefore, we are put in great difficulty if we are confronted by the calling immediately of a major Amendment of really great importance which none of us until a few moments ago had any reason to suppose would be called at all.
I ask you, in no way with the intention of delaying progress but because this is part of the orderly conduct of the proceedings of the Committee and because this is connected with the reasons for which you intimate your intention to indicate your selections in advance to hon. Members, very seriously to consider whether these two Amendments should not be taken separately, and whether, in the circumstances of the Committee being unadvised that they were to be taken at all, you should not make arrangements for them not to be proceeded with at this time.

The Chairman: The reason why this Amendment was not selected was that there was only a paving Amendment down without the Amendment itself. That is why I could not select the Amendment yesterday. There was only a paving Amendment down. I was trying to help the Committee by selecting any Amendments that were in order. I had to rule the other one out of order yesterday because it was a paving Amendment and the main Amendment was not there.
I realise that the selection of these Amendments for discussion puts the Committee in some difficulty, because they must be taken before the group which was already there. Of course I am at the disposal of the Committee about the grouping. If the Committee does not like it, it has only to say so. It is always possible to change it. I am quite happy if the Committee does not wish to discuss those Amendments with Amendment No. 96. The Committee may take them separately. But I am afraid that if they are to be discussed at all they will have to be taken now, because they come before Amendment No. 96.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. With respect, Sir Robert, what you have just said in reminding the Committee that the substantive Amendment to which Amendment No. 49 is

only paving was not even on the Notice Paper yesterday merely strengthens my submission. Whereas it is reasonable to expect hon. Members to seek to understand and to arrive at a point of view on Amendments which are on the Notice Paper even before they know that they are to be selected, I suggest that it is impossible for hon. Members to be prepared to consider or to debate an Amendment which was not on the Notice Paper until today and of which there was no suggestion or knowledge in advance that it would come into debate. If I may say so, the information of which you have reminded the Committee strengthens my submission that we should be in great difficulty in proceeding to Amendment No. 49 and the linked Amendments now.

The Chairman: That is a matter for the movers of the Amendment to decide, as soon as we can get to it. I repeat what I said before. I was anxious to give the Committee every chance to discuss all the Amendments that I could find it possible for it to discuss. I wanted only to be helpful. After all, this is a starred Amendment. Everyone knows that, generally speaking, that means that it is not called because the Ministry has not had time to consider it. In this case, it seemed to be in the interests of the Committee that I should try to call it. If when the time comes no hon. Member wants to move it, that is the business of those who have tabled it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. This illustrates the difficulties the Committee is placed in by having to proceed at this time, if we are to proceed.
Amendment No. 49, which you, Sir Robert, have said now should be discussed with Amendment No. 96 and a number of others, was put down, as I understand, with Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. Those three Amendments, in effect, operate together. If they were not called together, it would be extremely difficult to make sense out of them. Therefore, we are in a peculiar situation if Amendment No. 49 is called and has to be discussed with several other Amendments which do not necessarily cover the same ground, and Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, which were put down for the purpose of dealing with this point, are not called.
Therefore, I submit that it is not satisfactory to discuss the matter in that way. You, Sir Robert, may say, "All right; the way to solve that is not to discuss Amendment No. 49 at all." However, I submit that we ought to have the opportunity of discussing and considering Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 to see how they relate to the other Amendments.

The Chairman: Order. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are not in order.

Mr. Foot: I suggest, Sir Robert, that the Committee is placed in a serious situation. This is an illustration of the situation.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Stop this illegal picketing.

Mr. Foot: You have now said, Sir Robert, that you have called Amendment No. 49, and that Nos. 50 and 51 are out of order. As I understand it, that would mean that the proposition being put forward in Amendment No. 49 would not make sense in the Bill. Indeed, the Minister might get up and try to attack the Amendment on that basis. I suggest that it would be much better—

Mr. John Gorst: If the hon. Gentleman stopped wasting time.

Mr. Foot: One day hon. Gentlemen opposite will learn what the House of Commons is for. We shall have to teach them. They will have to have simple lessons night after night. Some of them, of whom the hon. Gentleman who interrupted is one, take a long time to catch up.
I suggest that it is extremely awkward for us to consider whether we wish to proceed to discuss the Amendment which has been called. We have put down three Amendments together. We would have to consider the effect of those Amendments if one is to be taken and the others are out of order. These are matters which hon. Members normally have a chance to consider after they have seen the Chairman's selection.
What you have now proposed, Sir Robert, is that we should discuss the Amendment which you yourself thought to be of sufficient importance to take exceptional steps to ensure should be called when we have had no opportunity to see how it affects the other Amend-

ments which we have put down. I suggest that if we try to proceed with the discussions in Committee by this method at this hour we shall not get an effective debate on these various Amendments. Those of us who wish to put our own arguments on these matters will not have a fair chance to do so, because we shall not have had a fair opportunity beforehand to examine the exact meaning of the Amendments which have been called. Therefore, what you have suggested as a method of dealing with these Amendments is a quite novel proposition.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Whose Amendment is this?

Mr. Foot: The Amendment has been cut in half by the Ruling of the Chair.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Make half a speech then.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has fully sustained his reputation as the silliest Member of the House of Commons.
I urge you again, Sir Robert, to exercise the right which you certainly have to accept a Motion to report Progress so that we shall be able to consider the state of the Amendments. That is a proposition which is open to you. If we do so, I suggest that we shall be able to discuss in an orderly manner the state of the Amendments which are being called and which relate to other Amendments. This is normally the way the House seeks to establish the procedure on which Amendments are to be called. If we are to proceed by the method you have suggested, I believe that you will get deeper and deeper into a procedural muddle, and it is your responsibility to try to assist us in escaping that situation.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Before he lost his temper, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was telling us that this was a serious situation. I must agree with him, because the true seriousness of the situation is that the majority of hon. Members wish to make progress with the Committee, and the measure of the seriousness of the situation is that the wish of the majority reached by a vote is being frustrated by the persistence of a minority of hon.


Members in employing the device of dilatory points of order to prevent any progress being made.
One of my hon. Friends might have described this as the parliamentary equivalent of illegal picketing in which we have seen the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in a characteristic burst of bad temper and intimidation.
So I put to you, Sir Robert, one of the most serious points of order which can be raised, not simply a nit-picking point about the precedence of Amendments, not a mediaeval debate for scholiasts only, but a question about the extent to which our time-honoured procedures are allowed to be frustrated by devices of that kind.
The Opposition Chief Whip may be right in saying that hon. Members on his side are incapable of sensible debate on this matter because they have whipped themselves up into a lather of indignation, but that does not apply to all hon. Members, and many hon. Members are willing to proceed.

Mr. Fred Peart: To breakfast, if necessary.

Mr. Onslow: The question that confronts us now is the extent of the willingness of the minority to be bound by the rules of democracy. We should ask the Leader of the Opposition to come and take charge of that rabble.

Hon. Members: Who is he?

The Chairman: In answer to what has been said, it is at least quite clear that we should get on with our work. There is no question but that the majority of the Committee want to get on with the work, and I think we should do so.
I am not going to say that hon. Members should not raise points of order—they are perfectly entitled to—but I put it to them that they have a duty to the Committee to make some progress now that the House has decided that that should be done.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Further to the point of order which was raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who suggested that the time-honoured procedures of this House were being frustrated by points of order

being raised on this, and indeed, on the other side. It is he and his hon. and right hon. Friends who have done their best to frustrate those time-honoured procedures by preventing fair debate.
Many of us want to contribute to the discussion on the Amendment which you have selected, Sir Robert, but we have not had an adequate opportunity for preparation. Surely the rights of back benchers should be protected by the Chair. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is gibbering about, but I have been here throughout the day, and I am not prepared to take insults from the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution to these matters has been absolutely nil. I am being prevented from making a serious point of order by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Surely it is right, Sir Robert, when you have selected an Amendment as important as this, that hon. and right hon. Members should have an opportunity of fully preparing their contributions to the debate?

The Chairman: I am seized of the hon. Gentleman's point. I have a high opinion of the intellect of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his hon. Friends. They would not have put down the Amendment unless they knew all about it. The six hon. and right hon. Members whose names are on the Amendment are well able to conduct a debate on that Amendment if they so wish. If they do not do so now that I have given them the opportunity, I can only conclude that they do not so wish.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. John Gilbert: I under stood you to say, Sir Robert, that we should not be in order in discussing any Amendment on the Notice Paper before Amendment No. 49. With great respect, I draw your attention to Amendments Nos. 59,50, 24, 25, 35, 45, 26, 27, 32, 33, 47, 14, 36, 37, 42, 71, 72, 73, 74, 46, 75, 51, 43 and 60. I am sure the Committee will be familiar with the text of every one of those Amendments. The Amendments to which I have referred all appear on the Notice Paper after Amendment No. 49, and I therefore infer from your ruling that I shall not be out of order in discussing them with you. The reason why I have chosen those Amendments to discuss is that my hon.


Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred earlier to a letter from yourself, which I take it I am in order in referring to—

The Chairman: Order. I take this to be an attempt to re-open our previous debate. All that I referred to as being out of order are the Amendments which I have already ruled on prior to Amendment No. 96.

Dr. Gilbert: Let us start again from No. 96. I would be happy to delete Nos. 50, 59, 24, 25, 35, 45, 26, 27—

The Chairman: Order. Those are the Amendments about which the debate took place. They are finished with.

Dr. Gilbert: I want the record straight. I am deleting from my previous references Amendments Nos. 59, 50, 24, 25, 35, 45. 26 and 27, so that we are left with Nos. 32, 33, 47, 14, 36, 37, 42, 71, 72, 73, 74, 46, 75, 51, 43 and 60. The last group comes after No. 96. I therefore return to why I have chosen those Amendments. They are referred to in your letter of today's date, Sir Robert, to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), in which you distinguish between—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite are calling me to order. That is the task of the Chair. On the one hand we have Amendments Nos. 34, 30 and 15 and on the other we have Nos. 14, 38 and 39. Having ruled out of order—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the mark—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because all this has been decided. This was dealt with when the House decided not to carry the Motion of censure, so that the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the Committee. [Interruption.] He knows what I mean when I say that he is indulging in a form of opposition which is not strictly parliamentary. He has no need to do it in that way.

Dr. Gilbert: As I was saying, Sir Robert—

The Chairman: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and I do not see any need for him to continue with it. Mr. Loughlin.

Dr. Gilbert: Further to my point of order—

The Chairman: Order. We are dealing with points of order. If I decide that have dealt with one—and I have ruled that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's—he must not persist, though that does not preclude him from raising another point of order with me later. Meanwhile, I have called Mr. Loughlin.

Dr. Gilbert: But—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I hope I may be permitted to put to you, Sir Robert—

The Chairman.: Order. I called Mr. Loughlin.

Dr. Gilbert: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I had called Mr. Loughlin.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: This must be the first time in many years I have been in this House that I rise to speak amid cries of "Hear, hear" from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
My point of order concerns a Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster in 1962. I cannot give the precise date of the debate in which he gave this Ruling, but I am sure that your officials will easily trace it for you, Sir Robert.
The documents that we have before us are the Treaty of Accession and the decision of the Council. Without dealing with them and wasting the time of the House, I submit to you, Sir Robert, that there are a number of documents which ought to be before the House before we can discuss the matters with which we are concerned.
11.15 p.m.
In a debate covering the British Broadcasting Agreement, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster adjourned the debate at about 3 a.m., on representations made by my hon. Friends, on the ground that no full discussion of any issue can be entered into by the House unless Members of the House have before them the requisite papers. On that occasion all that happened was that it was discovered— [Interruption.] The Chair cannot listen


to two of us. I am willing to wait. I am perfectly willing for the learned Clerk to advise you, Sir Robert, and to wait until he has finished, but I cannot see how you, Sir Robert, can be seized of the points I am making when at the same time you have to listen to the learned Clerk. I say that quite respectfully to both you, Sir Robert, and the learned Clerk.
The occasion to which I refer was important to the House because Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster gave a Ruling which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has applied up to the present. His Ruling on that particular issue was that the debate stood adjourned until the officers of the House could provide the requisite papers for the continuance of the debate. I am perfectly willing, Sir Robert, if you wish me to do so, to refer to a considerable number of documents which we ought to have. But on the occasion to which I have referred only one document was involved, and that was the British Broadcasting Agreement. My hon. Friends objected to the fact that I had procured the only copy from the Library and that the Vote Office could not provide copies.
If Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster ruled—it is a rule that has applied and been accepted by the officers of the House and by each succeeding Speaker—that there can be no discussion in this House of a matter on which the requisite papers are denied to right hon. and hon. Members, I submit to you, Sir Robert, that it is not possible to continue this discussion because the requisite papers are not available to us.

The Chairman: I quite understand what the hon. Member is saying, but he has not given chapter and verse. [Interruption.] I will give him chapter and verse. Would it not be better if hon. Members contained themselves and allowed the Chair when it is on its feet to continue? Neither the Speaker nor anyone else can rule that documents like that should be laid before the House. It is for the Government to lay the documents. Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster might have expressed an opinion—

Mr. Loughlin: No, he adjourned the debate.

The Chairman: As far as I know there is no discretion from the Chair that cer-

tain documents should be laid. I may be wrong, but I do not think so. But as far as I am concerned in this Committee there is nothing I can do from here to ensure that anything more is done than what the Government have said is being done.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Elysian Morgan: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Without in any way intruding on the contribution that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), perhaps I could very briefly draw attention to the passage which appears in the current edition of "Erskine May" on page 421. The heading there is:

"CITING OF DOCUMENTS NOT BEFORE THE HOUSE"

It says:
Another rule or principle of debate may be here added. A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.

I maintain that that is an authoritative statement of what is clearly a rule of procedure of the House. I do not argue that this is a rule which applies to anyone other than a Minister.

On the same page "Erskine May" goes on:
Members not connected with the Government have also cited documents in their possession, both public and private, which were not before the House: but though the House is equally unable to form a correct judgment from partial extracts, inconvenient latitude has sometimes been permitted, which it is doubtful whether any rule but that of good taste could have restrained.

If I may continue with the point—

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member in the course of his remarks explain to which documents he is referring, as that has not been done?

Mr. Morgan: It is my respectful submission that this is a rule which by now is so well established as not to allow any discretion in the Chair. It is a rule


of absolute import. It is a rule which applies only to Ministers of the Crown, but it is my submission and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends that the Amendments that we are dealing with concern the generality of Clause 1 and, therefore, scores or perhaps hundreds of documents. Since it would be impossible for the Minister to be able to deal properly with any one of these documents until such a document is within the confines of the House, clearly such a Minister would not be able to apply himself properly to any question asked by any of my hon. or right hon. Friends about that document.
You kindly asked me, Sir Robert, to state which documents I had in mind. Clause 1(2) says:
'the Treaties' or 'the Community Treaties' means, subject to subsection (3) below, the pre-accession treaties, that is to say, those described in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act…"—
taken with the treaty relating to accession.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 says:
Any treaty entered into before the 22nd January 1972"—
I ask the Committee to note that date—
by any of the Communities (with or without any of the member States) or, as a treaty ancillary to any treaty included in this Part of this Schedule, by the Member States (with or without any other country).
I understand that there is a voluminous bundle available for any hon. Member who wishes to claim it, amounting to some 40 pounds avoirdupois, of treaties published up to and including 10th November, 1971. I further understand that there are a few treaties entered into since 10th November, 1971. That is the first class of documents with which we are concerned on this point of order.
There is a second class of documents. I refer you, Sir Robert, to page 9 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4862, Article 3:
1. The new Member States accede by this Act to the decisions and agreements adopted by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting in Council.
That is the Council of Ministers.
They undertake to accede from the date of accession to all other agreements concluded by the original Member States relating to the functioning of the Communities or connected with their activities.

It is not the date on which a State becomes a member of the Community that matters, but the date of accession. As far as I know—I should be glad to be corrected by Ministers—none of the documents which record any of the decisions of the Council of Ministers has been published.
There are two crucial classes of documents, treaties entered into between 10th November, 1971, and 22nd January, 1972, and each and every one of the documents recording all the material decisions of the Council of Ministers. It would be improper to proceed with any of the general Amendments dealing with the Clause until such time as those documents are available for every Member.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I want, with due respect, to refer to the remarks you made when I made the original point of order in relation to the provision of papers. You said, it seemed to me at least, that you accepted the validity of the point that I made, except that I did not give you chapter and verse. It is true that I cannot give you the date of the debate to which I referred, when Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster made the Ruling. But surely it is not my responsibility to do that? It is the response of the learned clerks at the Table to advise you as to whether Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster did or did not make that Ruling.
In the debate, at three o'clock in the morning Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster was brought back into the Chair. It was because there were points of order arising from the non-provision of papers that the Speaker was sent for. When the position was explained to him, he there and then gave a Ruling. He ruled that the debate could not continue and should stand adjourned and said that he would give a specific instruction that the requisite papers should be available to hon. Members.
11.30 p.m.
If you accept, Sir Robert, as you appeared to do, the validity of the point of order that I put to you, except that it was inadequate in that I did not give chapter and verse, the learned clerks now having been informed of the circumstances in which Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's Ruling was made, I submit that it is incumbent upon them to let us


know the date and the terms of the Ruling. As you yourself said at one time, it would be a negation of the will of the House of Commons if the minority thwarted the majority. It is also a negation of the high principles of the House if the majority overrides the minority in a heavy-handed way.
If you require the document to be laid before the Committee, I repeat that you only have to look at page 9 and the first three lines of Article III to see the inadequacy of the papers available to us. if we cannot proceed with the right kind of papers, the Leader of the House ought to move to report Progress so that Mr. Speaker can rule on the original ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.

The Chairman: I hope I shall be able to answer that submission quicker than it took the hon. Gentleman to make it, although I am making no reproach on him for that.
The Chair is not called upon to force the laying of any documents. The only thing that is a rule is as was read out by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan)—that if a Minister quotes from a document he must lay that document on the Table. I know that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has said was said in good faith, but it is not in accordance with the facts. We will, of course, look up that Ruling by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, but it will take some time. I am, however, certain that we shall find that it did not lay down that it is the duty of the Chair to insist upon the laying of any documents. It is for the Government to decide what documents they will lay, and the only command they have on them is, as I have said, what was stated by the hon. Member for Cardigan.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order—

The Chairman: Mr. English.

Mr. English: Since I started this, perhaps you would allow me, Sir Robert, to comment briefly on it.

Several Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. English: The Chairman called me. On that point of order, Sir Robert, I suggest, first, that it is a well-established

principle that when a document refers to another document, if hon. Members have a right to see the first document, they also have a right to see the second. In other words, all that you have said in relation to a Minister quoting documents orally applies a fortiori when the documents concerned are in writing and one is quoted in the other. In this case, in a document which the Government have laid before us—the Act annexed to the Treaty of Accession—there are mentioned decisions of the Council of Ministers. One of my hon. Friends made a slight slip when he said that we had not seen any of the decisions of the Council of Ministers. Some have been published, but not all are in the Vote Office. This is a matter of vast importance.
Because one of the unpublished documents is the equivalent of our House of Commons Journal, the first thing that we do not know is the total number of documents not so published. Yet by the document placed before us they are all referred to, because it is said that we are acceding to all of them, whether or not we are sure that they have been published. I can prove that at least one has not been published in English. I have made detailed investigations, and I have had the assistance of the staff of the House, and I can say that a very important one has not been published in English, still less put in the Vote Office, and still less made available to us. I submit that in accordance with the normal rules of procedure of the House that document should be laid before us.
Sir Robert, you said that it was not your responsibility to force the Government to lay a document. I accept that; but it may be your responsibility to say that it should be laid, which is not quite the same thing. In this case the Government originally showed every willingness. On several occasions the Leader of the House said that all necessary documents would be laid before us in the English translation, and he has produced 41 volumes of regulations and dozens of volumes of treaties. There is no doubt that a considerable job of work has been done to fulfil that assurance, but it has not been fulfilled completely.
The document that I can show not to have been published refers to the rules of procedure of the Council of Ministers. Yesterday, Sir Robert, you were kind enough to say that one Amendment,


which related directly to that document, may be in order at a later stage. The German Parliament—although there is nothing in the treaty to say so—is allowed to have an observer from the Bundesrat in the Council of Ministers. That is not in the treaty. Presumably, in the rules of procedure of the Council of Ministers there may be a decision on that point.
It is a common rule of most Legislatures that they should meet in public, and there is nothing in the treaties to say that the Council of Ministers should not do so. It is Article 18 of its rules of procedure that says that it shall meet in secret. Nobody ever obeys it, but it would be interesting to ascertain the real position. There will be some difficulty on the part of the Government to lay that document, because I believe that the Treaty of Rome says that the Council of Ministers shall pass its rules of procedure—a not uncommon practice with all Legislatures. The Council of Ministers, however, has never got farther than having provisional rules of procedure.
I suggest that we are on a most important point—a point of great substance. Before we can pass anything into the law of this country we must know what it is.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will agree that he has made his point. I have to make mine, and it is that that has nothing to do with me. As I have explained, the laying of documents is not at the direction of the Chair, except insofar as it was stated by the hon. Member.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I think we will have Mr. Cormack this time.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I submit that what we are seeing this evening is a gross abuse of Parliament. We are seeing parliamentary anarchy upon the Floor of the Committee. I would respectfully urge that we take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and ask for the Leader of the Opposition to come and try to instil some discipline into his disorganised troops.

The Chairman: I do not think there is anything I can add to that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It was raised by the hon. Members' Whips and put into his mouth.

Mr. Spearing: I noted the hon. Member's remarks and those of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) with care. The hon. Member for Cannock and I have both been in the House of Commons for the same time. He and his hon. Friends have said there is something dishonourable and undemocratic about the way in which some of my hon. Friends are raising points of order. I wish to put my point of view because this is something which I do not understand and neither do my constituents. Some of these Amendments have been ruled out of order. I will take three, Amendment No. 24 dealing with fisheries, No. 32 dealing with New Zealand and No. 33 dealing with British dependent territories. Amendment 24 says—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed on that point. The House has decided on the Amendments which he is mentioning. Perhaps he could address the same point to some other Amendment.

Mr. Spearing: May I explain why I was referring to them, Sir Robert, not in terms of the Ruling that you have given? It may be that in Committee hon. Members can debate these matters as a whole. On our discussions on the White Papers it has not been possible to have a debate of three or four hours on a particular point about these treaties. If we had been able to debate these Amendments that sort of debate would have been possible, and I was looking forward to such a debate, as I am sure was the hon. Member for Cannock. As a result of your Ruling it will not be possible to have that sort of debate. At what stage will it be possible to have a concentrated debate of three or four hours on issues which are disturbing the country? It has not been possible fully to comprehend any treaty or Bill without that sort of debate.
At what stage shall we be able to have that sort of debate? Without that, the hon. Member's remarks about this being unworthy do not stand. Without


that, Parliament is being gagged and cannot have the sort of debate it has always had, which must take place if all the implications are to be understood not only by hon. Gentlemen opposite but by the country.

11.45 p.m.

The Chairman: I cannot pre-judge my selection. The hon. Member will have to see what happens when the time comes. I have given the selection for us to get on with, and there is nothing to stop us. I should have thought that there was a lot of work before us on what has been selected. I cannot answer questions relating to the future until the time comes and we see how we get along. However, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: May I raise an entirely new point of order, Sir Robert? I do so, as you well know, with some reluctance. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members will give me credit for some deep thought and anguish on this question. I voted with the Government tonight out of loyalty to you, because I am one of your Panel of Chairmen. But that does not prevent me from being worried about the future in this Committee. It is because of that that I wish to make two specific points.
The first relates to your Ruling about future conduct in this Committee and future Rulings. You have been kind enough to rule on Clause 1, and you ruled that a large number of Amendments were out of order. Of those which were left you were then obliged to make your selection. You then told the Committee that you had ruled certain Amendments out of order. You used a very significant phrase, which brings us to the kernel of the matter over the next few months in this Committee. That was that your reason was "the nature of the Bill".
You then proceeded to define that term, and you used the phrase "legal nuts and bolts". This brought the study by the Committee within a very narrow purview. Because of that, you cancelled out some very important Amendments. I say this in no spirit of criticism. I tried to catch your eye yesterday to help the Committee, and I am doing so in that spirit now.
You further said that this was not a Bill dealing with the Treaty of Accession,

that it was a legal nuts and bolts Bill, and that any Amendments designed to vary the treaties could not be in order. You based your Ruling on a part of the Bill which has no statutory force—the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. By the rules of this House, no Amendments can be moved to that part of the Bill. The Long Title is the crunch of the meaning of the Bill. There we get away from the basis of your Ruling and to what should have been ruled upon. That says it is to
Make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities…

The Chairman: It grieves me very much to have to call my hon. Friend, such a distinguished member of the Chairmen's Panel, to order, but I am afraid that I must do so because he is going back on the position which the House has taken. I know him so well that I am sure he will not persist in this which is something that has been done already and has been dealt with. I hope that he will do what I ask.

Mr. Jennings: I submit entirely to your Ruling, Sir Robert. Actually, I was leading from the past to the future. In view of your Rulings on Clause 1, this Committee has to consider how you will rule on Clause 2 and subsequent Clauses. I see you shake your head; but you will have to make Rulings on Clause 2 and Clause 3. Clause 2 is the crunch of the Bill, and if you make the same type of Ruling on Clause 2 as you have made on Clause 1 that will obviate a very wide discussion on what is included in "making provision".
The Ruling that has been made places the validity of the whole Bill in jeopardy. You have used the phrase "provisional selection", and you have shown by accepting another Amendment that you are wide open to further Amendments being put down. Therefore, you ought to take your provisional selection back—I say this in good faith—and look at it again. You should also take the whole Bill back. We are prevented from discussing many matters in the Bill, particularly in Schedule 1(1), which delineates the principles. In view of what has been ruled, the Bill is now entirely out of order. You and your legal advisers and the draftsmen—[Interruption.] I am talking sense, and I know I am. I have


had experience of draftsmen and of legal advice when I have been in the Chair so often. I am sure that you will be bound to look at this point, Sir Robert, now that I have raised it and now that the whole validity of the Bill is in question. I ask you to take the Bill back and look at its validity and legality.

The Chairman: The hon. Member knows that he cannot ask me to take the Bill back, because he knows that has nothing to do with me and that I can do nothing of what he has said. No doubt he meant that for other ears than mine.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert, which was raised with all seriousness by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who is one of the most senior members of the Chairmen's Panel. This is a point which I have been seeking to make for some time. I have been here throughout the day's proceedings without seeking to intervene until now.
I fully accept your Ruling that the past is past, and the only submission we may make to you now is about the future. You will recall that the system in Standing Committee upstairs is that if points are not raised at the appropriate time—namely, at the beginning—one cannot raise them later. Many Chairmen upstairs have often ruled that that is the appropriate time to raise matters, and we have learnt this over the years.
My point is a point of substance. You, Sir Robert, have made your first selections. Any hon. Member who wishes to put forward a certain point of view on an Amendment in the future cannot wait until all the selections you have made are exhausted and then come along here and claim a manuscript Amendment, with the excuse that he did not prepare his Amendments in advance. Obviously, that would not be in order, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Chair has granted such a manuscript Amendment. Hon. Members will now have to start preparing their future Amendments, and I submit that this matter concerns the future and not the past.
If we are to get busy in preparing further Amendments, the only indication we have of the likely attitude of the Chair is the selection you have so far made and the statement you made

yesterday. That statement is the governing factor, as is the decision made today. These are our guidelines in making up our minds in framing future Amendments. My point concerns the desire of right hon. and hon. Members to go beyond the narrow confines which you have laid down in your statement.
The point is that the wider limits cannot now be decided for us by you, but during the debate the Government have argued, and the House has agreed, that all we were debating and deciding today was the Motion concerning your previous decision and selection. The Government have listened to the debate, and, so that the debate can be properly conducted, we are entitled to urge the Government to allow a pause for recon, sideration.
I urge the Government, in the knowledge that they now have as a result of today's debate, to allow a pause for reconsideration. I appreciate, Sir Robert, that this is a decision that you cannot make. You can only accept a Motion to report Progress. We know that the Government control the House, as they do each Standing Committee upstairs. But this new situation should, I suggest, cause the Government to consider seriously whether it would not be wise to undertake a certain amount of redrafting of the Bill so that wider Amendments may be tabled.
12 midnight
I am fortified in my submission by the claim of the Leader of the House that he could have had no prior knowledge of the decisions which you announced yesterday. If that is the position, I suggest that it is now the duty of the Leader of the House to call a pause and to reconsider.
What I am asking you, Sir Robert, is whether you will indicate, in the way in which Chairmen sometimes do, that it would be advisable for the Government to adopt my suggestion and so help the Committee in its further work?

The Chairman: I think I can go some way to help the hon. Gentleman. I should like him and all right hon. and hon. Members to realise that I and my assistants are at their disposal. If hon. Members want to seek advice on what Amendments they can or cannot put down, we shall be only too pleased to help them before they have gone to a lot


of trouble and research. We are only too willing to give what unofficial advice we can as to what may and may not be done. I cannot say fairer than that. I think that that is the best answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Sillars: I rise on a matter which, as an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, I consider to be of extreme importance.
Earlier, Sir Robert, you said that it was not in the power of the Chair to determine which documents should be laid on the Table. I accept that. However, it is totally impossible for this Committee to proceed to consider Clause 1 without having a number of very important documents on the Table. I refer to the Treaty of Union, 1707, the English Act of Union, 1707, and the Scottish Act of Union—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: They are all in the Library.

Mr. Sillars: We are, after all, sitting as a Committee of the whole House. If one departs from here to the Library too frequently, one risks missing important statements made in the Chamber. [Interruption.] An intervention of that sort from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes my point more pertinent than ever.

Mr. William Ross: It was not meant to be taken seriously.

Mr. Sillars: I take all Englishmen seriously, especially English Tories. It is on the basis of their votes that we are having so much legislation forced upon us.
It is essential for a proper understanding of the contractual legal relationship between Scotland and England that we have these documents laid on the Table. I do not think it is appreciated by the vast majority of hon. Members that there are obligations between Scotland and England involved in the Treaty of Union.

Mr. MacArthur: Nonsense.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) says "Nonsense"—

Mr. MacArthur: Read the Act.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Does my hon. Friend want me to get the Act for him?

Mr. Sillars: No, I do not need it. I shall quote from someone whom the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will not rebut. I refer to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who is an English Tory Member of Parliament. Yesterday, in making a fairly long statement, he talked about wrecking Amendments. In part of that statement he said:
The purpose of the Bill is to bring Community law into the law of England"—

The Chairman: Order. I should like the hon. Gentleman to leave that part and go on to something else, because that is not what we are on.

Mr. Sillars: I think you have misunderstood me, Sir Robert. I am making this quotation to illustrate the point which I have been trying to make about the need for certain documents. I shall not debate the merits and demerits of what took place yesterday or earlier this evening. I will quote again and then go on. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich said:
The purpose of the Bill is to bring Community law into the law of England, and if we alter the treaty that is the end of the Common Market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol 832, c. 280.]
The point is that the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the law of England, totally ignorant of the fact that the Long Title of the Bill talks about the United Kingdom, which is made up of several countries, not England alone. Therefore, if we are properly to debate Clause 1 and all the treaties in which the various countries of the United Kingdom are involved, it is essential, for the education of English Tory Members of Parliament no less, that we have before us the Treaty of Union and the various Acts of Union and the amending Acts since the Act of Union of 1707. If it were not out of order, I would suggest that they be made compulsory reading for the benefit of English Tory Members of Parliament, and especially the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I ask you, as Chairman, seriously to reconsider the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
This is an unprecedented occasion on an unprecedented matter of grave concern not only to this House but to the nation as a whole. I caught you smiling just now, and you seem fresh at the moment. However, I suggest that our long proceedings, into the early hours of the morning if we proceed to consider the Amendments, would be much better accomplished at a sitting time next week when many of us will be fresher to participate in the debate.
The work of Parliament is not only in Standing Committees upstairs and on the Floor of the House but in Select Committees. I am a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. In the course of my duties on that Select Committee I have to make an important visit tomorrow pertinent to the Committee's work. Therefore, I should find it very difficult physically to fulfil my duties to my constituents by participating in the debate on these important Amendments which affect their whole future and carry out my duties on the Select Committee.
I suggest, Sir Robert, that the submission made to you by a member of the Chairman's Panel, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), should weigh most heavily on your mind because in the event of your being so wearied—I suggest that the whole House should go into these matters with their eyes open wide and that you and I should have our eyes wide open and that as Chairman of this Committee you should pay rapt attention and drink in every word uttered—and in the event of your not being able, because of sheer physical fatigue, to fulfil all these onerous duties, it might happen that the hon. Member for Burton, who has gone temporarily to refresh himself to enable him to keep his eyes open in the coming hours, might have to take the Chair.
I understand that that might happen in the event of your not being able to carry out this arduous duty. I have your good health warmly in mind because you and I have had an exceedingly friendly relationship since I came to the House. I have that much in mind although you said in a previous ruling that it is not a matter for you, but it is very much a matter for your constituents and mine that you should be in good fettle to conduct these proceedings.
However, should it so happen that you are not—and in this kind of life in which we work, not only by day but by night, it might so happen—the hon. Member for Burton might be called on to take the Chair after we have been arguing for hours around these important Amendments, which would give rise to detailed discussion. Perhaps that would be halfway through the debate. The proposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale might then again be put to the Chair. What would then be the farcical situation? The hon. Member for Burton would take an entirely different view from yours.

The Chairman: Order. I must come to the protection of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), because if he were in charge he would exercise precisely the same judgment and authority as I do.
I think the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) has made his point. To my mind, we are fairly early in the evening. I am feeling extremely fit. When it comes to 6 or 7 o'clock we might be glad of a rest. There is nothing to worry about. We can go for a long time if the Committee so wishes.
I perhaps felt that in what he was saying the hon. Member was testing out whether I would accept from him a Motion to report Progress. I would not feel justified in accepting it, except from those in charge of the Bill, at a time like this. It is so early.

Mr. Michael Foot: You have said, Sir Robert, that you would not accept any Motion to report Progress except from a Minister or someone in charge of the Bill, and I understand that that is a regular custom, although such a Motion is sometimes accepted from other quarters as well. I ask you to consider, Sir Robert, whether you would not consider accepting a motion from this side or whether the Minister would consider proposing it at this stage for these reasons.
This part of our proceedings has lasted for about 2¼ hours, and many extremely interesting points of order have been raised. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) raised, with regard to the Amendment with which he is associated, a perfectly proper point of order that the House will wish to consider. Points of order have


been raised about the further Amendment which you have accepted. We have not been able to examine in detail the effect that this will have on our other Amendments. Questions have also been raised about the documents which hon. Members think should be laid or made available.
12.15 a.m.
These are all questions upon which the House is entitled to have further Rulings from the Chair. You have said, Sir Robert, that we may leave Amendment No. 49 over to a later stage, and we have a perfect right to consider that.
Bearing in mind all these aspects, it would surely be better for the order of the House if a Motion to report Progress were to be moved, so that we could meet next week after all these matters have been considered and hon. Members have been able to carry through the discussions with the Table Office that you have recommended. We should have an opportunity to reflect on these different points of order affecting the future conduct of the Bill before we debate it in Committee.
This would not be a sign of weakness by the Government. I appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to move this Motion. He will lose nothing by doing so. When we meet again we shall start on the discussion in a more orderly way. In the interval we shall be able to consider the advice which the Chair has given us in the past two hours.
We are told that we can make representations to the Table Office, but we cannot do that tonight. We are also told to consider what documents are or should be made available, but we cannot do that tonight either. For the sake of the orderly conduct of the business of the House, the Government would be well advised to agree to report progress at this stage.

Mr. Rippon: It will be within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) adduced much the same argument yesterday. Then we were told that it would make for the orderly progress of business and the better running of the House of Commons if we did not proceed with the discussion of the Bill—without prejudice, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had

suggested—but waited until after the substantive Motion which hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to table had been debated. We acceded to that request, the hon. Gentleman having assured us that after the substantive Motion had been considered the way would be open for orderly debate on the Bill.
Tonight the hon. Gentleman says the same thing. I do not regard this as treating the Committee in the way it should be treated. I cannot believe that any of the rights of any hon. Member would be prejudiced by the hon. Gentleman moving his Amendment. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says he does not know what it means, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale must know its meaning, and perhaps he will now explain it to us. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that course, and then we can deal with other matters as we go along.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I wish to make an appeal to the Committee.

Hon. Members: On a point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I appeal to the Committee to appreciate that we are abusing our democratic processes if we do not now make some progress with the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Obviously, I cannot make the Committee make progress. I can only appeal to hon. Members, in the interests of our democratic assembly, to behave in a parliamentary way. Perhaps we can now hear something of the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and other hon. Members.
If hon. Members wish to have a long discussion on that, then I do not think the Government would be inclined to ask for the closure. Certainly the Chair would not wish to grant such a request until there had been a considerable discussion of such an Amendment. I hope that I may now be permitted to call the hon. Member to move his Amendment, if he wishes to do so.

Hon. Members: On a point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I trust that hon. Members will hear what the Chair


has to say before raising further points of order. I hope we can keep the temperature down. The Committee has been very good so far, and I hope it will continue to be so. As a number of hon. Members have risen to raise points of order with me, I am sure that the Committee will not object if I call an hon. Member from the Government side. Sir Tatton Brinton.

Sir Tatton Brinton: The first part of my point of order, Sir Robert, is to ask you whether it is not our rule that points of order should be brief and to the point, and to ask you to rule when a point of order becomes obvious filibustering, of which we have heard a great deal tonight. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must be fair. When they raised points of order they got a hearing all right from the Government side of the House. They must let the Government side of the House be heard as well.

Sir T. Brinton: Secondly, Sir Robert, how many times may hon. Members raise again a point of order with which you have already dealt?

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I must reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) first. The hon. Member is quite right. Points of order should be as short as possible. All hon. Members know that. It is very difficult for the Chair to insist that they be short. I have to be as patient as I can with everyone and try to listen to them all. In the long run, it is only the Committee that can see that our democratic processes proceed. When the Committee decides that there have been enough points of order and that we should proceed, I am sure that we shall do so. I can only appeal to hon. Members and tell them that I am quite sure that that moment has now arisen, and I hope that we shall be able to make some progress.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton), this is also the first occasion on which I have been called. Unlike the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I have been present for the whole discussion. Before I come to my main point of order, I must say that it is a bit much for someone who has not

been sitting in the Committee to come in and attack not only hon. Members but also, with respect, Sir Robert, the Chair.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. I am sure that he will come on to something of his own.

Mr. Buchan: I felt that it was a necessary preamble, Sir Robert, before coming to my point of order, to say that we so much regretted the attack upon the Chair as well as on hon. Members.
As you correctly said, Sir Robert, we face a serious situation. This serious situation requires serious consideration—[Interruption.]—and not this kind of flippant interruption from Ministers. The position we now face and the difficulty that has arisen is that for many weeks on Committees we have been told that we cannot discuss certain problems in Committees—and you are responsible for Committees, Sir Robert—because they could be discussed on the Floor of the House under the E.E.C. legislation. That has been the position over the last five weeks, for instance, on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We are now finding it difficult, because of the Ruling that has been given, to pursue matters which we could not pursue under British legislation dealing with Britain because it was referred to the Floor of the House. The Ruling yesterday and the decision today are now making it impossible for us even to examine legislation to deal with Britain inside the very Committees of the House of Commons.
With respect, Sir Robert, this is a serious situation. Recognising as you do, Sir Robert, the seriousness of your Ruling, and remembering the very powerful point put forward by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)—and, may I add, I regret very much—

An hon. Member: Tedious repetition. Where is the point of order?

Mr. Buchan: —some of the flippant and frivolous remarks made by his hon. Friends—that the nature of the Bill was suspect, what is now the position before us? The position—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member said that he would put a point of order to me. He should tell me what


it is about so that I can follow what he is saying. At the moment, it does not seem that he is raising a point of order. I want to hear it.

Mr. Buchan: I am coming to the kernel of the point of order.

Mr. Cormack: Filibuster.

Mr. Buchan: We have had a debate today. The purpose of debates in this House is not only to reach a decision but also so that we can reflect on the points raised. I suggest, Sir Robert, with all respect, that many fresh points have been adduced throughout the day to which the Chair, the Table Office and the Conservative Party should be giving consideration.
The introduction of a new Amendment suggests that the way is open for further consideration, and I would ask you to use your authority Sir Robert, to allow us to wait until Monday to let the Table reflect as well as letting the Government reflect upon their conduct. Fresh matters could then be discussed, if necessary upstairs, as well as the serious fundamental matters in the Bill. I hope, Sir Robert, that you will take the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the kind of discussion that has taken place today.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy: May I refer to a phrase you used, Sir Robert, when you ruled a few moments ago? You said that the House could go on all through the night. With the greatest respect, that is not the issue. Many of us believe that this is of vital importance to the future of the House and the nation. Many of the points that have been made, particularly those by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the right hon. Gentleman for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) are not issues only for the House of Commons. Some hon. Members opposite think they are jokes. But that is not so with hon. Members who have to report to their constituents on what we are trying to do here.
The three hon. Members I have mentioned have argued that there is material—[Interruption.] May I ask you, Sir Robert to ask those hon. Members who have been out dining to go back and

finish their cigars so that we can carry on with the important business of deciding whether Britain's future is in jeopardy? That is what the Bill is about. In order to be able to examine all that has been raised here this evening and for you to confirm all your Rulings, certain documents and information should be made available.

The Chairman: I understand the hon. Member's point, and I have ruled on it. There is no obligation on the Chairman to force the Government to lay documents, as I have indicated.

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order. Is it not your responsibility and that of the Chair, Sir Robert, to safeguard the reputation of the House? Is it not perfectly clear that continuous repetitions of points of order on which you have already ruled, which have now been running for over two hours, are nothing, other than a determined effort to delay progress of the business of the House? Therefore, is it not the responsibility of the Chair, as well as safeguarding the rights of the minority, to safeguard the right of the majority and of the Government to be able to make progress.

The Chairman: I am sure the Committee will realise that life is a little difficult for me at the moment. I am trying to think about various things in "Erskine May", listen to hon. Members, decide what to do and hope that hon. Members will help me. So far they do not seem to be awfully co-operative. I hope they will improve as the night wears on. I am trying to do all I can to safeguard the dignity and honour of the House.
I think that all those raising points of order have one main matter in mind, which is that they are thoroughly dissatisfied with what they deem the Government to have done, which is no concern of mine. Circumstances are such that I have to sit here and try to deal with them. So if they do not choose to have any mercy on me I shall not have any mercy on them. Therefore, I shall sit as long as it is necessary for me to sit here, and I shall not in the least be worn down. Other hon. Members can go out and refresh themselves, but I shall not be able to do that. As we have started on points of order, I


must continue with them until they are finished, and that I propose to do. Mr. Fletcher—

Mr. Molloy: I had not finished my point of order.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I rise Sir Robert with what I hope is an entirely new point of order, a quite legitimate, almost copper-bottomed point of order which arises from a previous submission and fairly rapid researches I have conducted in a recent visit to the Library.
It is clear that the Amendment selected at this late hour, to which we have not been able to give the necessary attention, will involve consideration of certain German legislation, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Translation of that legislation is not available. I do not make that my point of order, because I am translating it myself. I cannot conclude that complicated work in time to take an intelligent part in the debate on the Amendment, which has so recently, so suddenly and so surprisingly been selected. That places me in considerable difficulties, in that I am prohibited by the very nature of the matter from making the kind of contribution that the contribution already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West inclines me to believe I should be making at this point, since I know a certain amout about the Bundestag from personal observation and from working inside that building before I was elected to this one.

The Chairman: That is very interesting, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his industry, but there is no mention of German legislation in the Amendment, which we have not yet reached. I should be happy to consider that position further if we reach the Amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Before I take any more points of order I should see whether anyone is rising who has not yet raised a point of order. I call Mr. Stainton.

Mr. Keith Stainton: In a spirit of the utmost co-operation towards the Chair and towards the Opposition, I beg to move

Amendment No. 49, in Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'the'.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. O'Malley: I rise to two points of order, Sir Robert. Some little time ago, you ruled that the question of the laying of documents on the Table was no concern of yours. If that be the case, would you consider and take into account a Ruling by the Chairman of a previous Committee of the House, the details of which I can recite although I cannot give the exact date?
In 1964 a minor but nevertheless useful Measure, the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (Amendment) Act went through Parliament. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but an important Ruling was made by the Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, as it then was. As a result of a number of representations by a number of hon. Members on both sides, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who pointed out the Ruling by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster to which he has again referred tonight, complaining that all the relevant documents were not available, the Chairman strongly recommended to the Home Office Minister in charge that it would serve the best interests of progress and be in accordance with Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's Ruling if the Committee were to adjourn until the papers were available.
I submit that you should now take that Ruling into account, Sir Robert, and, therefore, reconsider your earlier Ruling, especially since, as you yourself said, you have not had the opportunity to look up the numerous precedents. I suggest that precedent is very important and that if we are to operate our procedures the Ruling to which I have referred may well be a binding one.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few minutes ago complained that we were not making progress with the Bill although the Government had made available the first opportunity to debate the Motion of censure on the Chair. But he neglected to mention that the so far abortive proceedings in Committee were proposed by the Government after Ten o'clock. You yourself have said that you want to see us


proceed democratically, and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has suggested that you should safeguard the dignity of the Chair. I think hon. Members on both sides will agree with those general sentiments.
But how can one uphold the dignity of the Chair in these circumstances at this hour when we are faced with very difficult Amendments, including an additional Amendment of which we knew nothing? I submit, Sir Robert, that you should reconsider your decision on the question of putting the Motion to report Progress, because that would be the best way of preserving the dignity of the Committee. It would also be the best way for the Government to be assured of proper progress and proper discussion of important Amendments. It would also be the best way for the Chair to conduct an orderly democratic and dignified Committee.

12.45 a.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has put a very fair point, and I should like to answer it. I still feel that I cannot accept such a Motion at this early hour. It is very early. We shall be sitting much later than this on many occasions next month. Tonight is nothing. I cannot accept such a Motion at this hour unless it is proposed by those in charge of the Bill—when I shall consider whether or not I shall accept it.
Meanwhile, the task of the Committee is to proceed with its work. It is still my duty to beg the Committee to change its mind and get on with the job. Nearly all the hon. Members who are seeking to raise points of order now have already raised points of order. I see that there is one new hon. Member rising, whom I shall call to raise his point of order. I would think that all those who are rising—at any rate, on the Opposition benches—should be satisfied with having made their points. I have dealt with them as best I can, and I think that we should now get on with our work.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): . Further to the points of order that have been raised. Is it not a fact—and will you so rule, Sir Robert—that Amendment No. 49 has been duly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and duly seconded by my hon. Friend the

Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)? May we therefore proceed with the debate?

The Chairman: That Amendment has not been moved because points of order arose before I could propose it.

Mr. Ross: I listened very carefully to your reply to my hon. Friend, Sir Robert. An Amendment is not before the Committee until it has been put by the Chairman; so the question does not arise. The hon. Member should learn a little about the rules of order.
My hon. Friend put a serious point asking you to consider again what you said about the availability of documents. Any ruling that you give here affects other Committees now sitting. If your ruling is to stand in relation to the availability of documents it may mean an alteration in what has hitherto applied, certainly in the Scottish Standing Committee; namely, that the documents necessary for the proper consideration of the Bill are always there, and insisted upon, and if they are not there the Committee adjourns until they are made available. That tradition has gone on for a long time. I ask you to reconsider what you have said about the availability of documents, Sir Robert.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. I raised it fairly early on, but you appeared to have some doubts as to the accuracy of the submission that I was making, Sir Robert. For the purpose of greater accuracy I have procured the relevant report of the debate, which was on 29th November, 1961.
I want to corect two statements that I made when I first raised the matter this evening. I said that the Speaker had adjourned the debate. This was not so. The Adjournment was moved by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Iain Macleod.

Mr. Gorst: Tedious repetition of mistakes. Sit down.

Mr. Loughlin: The second correction is that the time the debate ended was not 3 o'clock but 11.33 p.m. Having made those corrections and drawn the Ruling to your attention Sir Robert, I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will follow the example of his predecessor. It was specifically ruled


that the requisite papers should be before the House. What the Chancellor said on that occasion was:
I have always understood the sense of the Ruling over the last two Sessions to mean that these documents were not necessarily made available, but if there is any doubt, and it is clear from what you have said, Sir, that there is doubt, I m very ready, if I may, to ask you leave to accept a Motion to adjourn the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th Nov., 1961; Vol. 650, c. 586.]
There is a lesson there. No one could claim that the late Iain Macleod was biased in our favour, but he had a great respect for this House.

Mr. Peter Rost: He did not abuse it.

Mr. Loughlin: You will accept, Sir Robert, that the points I have raised have been serious, specific points of order worthy of your consideration. If that has not been so I would have expected you to rebuke me. Where there was an element of doubt arising out of the Speaker's Ruling on the non-production of papers, the Government had the courage to adjourn the debate. In the light of that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to take this opportunity and have the courage of the late Iain Macleod.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Robert. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) has sought to assist you by moving Amendment 49—

Mr. Heffer: If he can move that Amendment, this is the Reichstag!

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will not let bad temper come into this. I am sure I know him well enough to know that.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I will call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in a moment, when I have called the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir. H. Legge-Bourke).

Mr. Dennis Skinner: You have not called me yet, Sir Robert.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge said in moving the Amendment—

Mr. Loughlin: No—it has not been moved.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend said—

Mr. John Mendelson: The Chair ruled that it has not been moved.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend said that he was seeking to assist the Chair—

Mr. Loughlin: He was cheating.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend said that he was seeking to assist you, Sir Robert. While I am sure we all admire enormously the immense patience which you have shown in the last 2¾ hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—nevertheless, we are seeking to help you in any way we can. In particular, we should like to know from you whether it is your wish to continue taking points of order which we feel have already been taken  ad nauseam, or whether you want us to make progress on the Bill—which means that we should now have a discussion on the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved.

The Chairman: It is true that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made an attempt to move the Amendment, but other hon. Members rose on points of order before he could complete, or before I could hear him complete, that Motion. Therefore, I am bound to call a point of order when it arises. I am afraid that, much as I would like to be assisted by the hon. Member, I must carry out the rules of the House, even if it seemed to some hon. Members that they were being abused a little. It is only fair now that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who has something particular which has sprung to his mind, should be called. I will then call the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge.

Mr. Heffer: I believe that everyone in the Committee will accent, Sir Robert, that you have acted tonight with great dignity under great difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but a suggestion has been made—I do not mean just on the Amendment which you did not call—that it would be possible for hon. Members to move Amendments


which are not their Amendments and that they could then be discussed.
If the Committee accepts that situation, then this House has ceased to be a democratic body and will have become like the Reichstag in Fascist Germany. That is precisely what some hon. Members are trying to allow to happen now, by introducing a Bill which is taking away our basic and democratic rights.

The Chairman: I wish that all points of order which have been raised tonight had been as easy to answer as that one. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection that what he has said is not correct. Anyone can move an Amendment on the Notice Paper. He will recollect that on Standing Committees hon. Members who are not even on the Committee can put down Amendments and have them moved by hon. Members who are on the Committee—

Mr. Heffer: This has never been done.

The Chairman: I have seen it done myself. So far as the rules of order go, it is perfectly in order—[Interruption.] Order. It is perfectly in order for any hon. Member to move another hon. Member's Amendment—

Mr. Heffer: Not across the Floor.

The Chairman: —if he wishes to. It may be unusual, but it is not out of order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Pavitt.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: rose—

1 a.m.

The Chairman: I am sorry. I said that I would call the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Sir Robert. You are calling the hon. Member on a point of order.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order, Sir Robert. In defence of my integrity and position in this matter, I hesitate to come into conflict with the Chair, but I must insist that my whole utterance and recital of Amendment No. 49 as printed on the Notice Paper, as will be shown by HANSARD and could probably be verified in the next few moments by a visit to the HANSARD office, did in fact emerge

from my mouth. It was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) before any protest was heard from the other side of the Committee.
This puts me in a very difficult position, I am sure that you will appreciate this, Sir Robert, because if I persist in my assertion that will bring me into conflict with the Chair. I am prepared to meet that situation. I am quite clear as to the occurrence, the timing of my utterance and the timing of the remarks which subsequently came from the other side of the Committee. I therefore again say that there is no mistaking that I formally moved Amendment No. 49.

Mr. Ross: When you called the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) just now, Sir Robert, he had risen to a point of order. When you called him previously, when he says he sought to move something, he also rose on a point of order.

Mr. Stainton: No.

Mr. Ross: It is, of course, in order for any hon. Member when an Amendment is called to rise and move that Amendment, but, Sir Robert, you did not call any Amendment. You called the hon. Member on a point of order. I think it objectionable for an hon. Member to try to abuse the practice of the House.

The Chairman: Yes, I think the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is correct. When an hon. Member rises on a point of order he cannot at the same time move an Amendment.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I concede the point made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). This last intervention was a point of order. [Interruption.] I shall proceed at my leisure and not have words put into my mouth.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member will not deceive the Committee.

Mr. Stainton: It has been remarked that I shall not deceive the Committee. It is not within me to deceive the Committee. I want to make quite clear that when you called my name on the first of the two occasions, Sir Robert, you did not call me on a point of order, nor did I say that I was rising on a point of order.
Your invitation to me, Sir Robert—I cannot recapitulate the precise terms—was an invitation to rise to assist the Chair and the general expedition of the business of the House. I am proceeding at some length because this is an important point. I feel very exposed on this matter—[Interruption.] And I shall not be put off what I am saying by the 16 stone of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) [An HON. MEMBER: "Eighteen stone".] All right, 18 stone.
Your invitation to which I responded was not a point of order—and this can be ascertained from HANSARD—but was an invitation to facilitate the business of the House. At some length, and, I thought, with reasonable courtesy, I prefaced my remarks by saying that my endeavours would be to facilitate both the position of the Chair and that of the Opposition.
I repeat now, so that there may be no subsequent misunderstanding, my own position in this matter, and it was within the hearing of my hon. Friends in the vicinity hereabouts. I completed the formal presentation and recitation of Amendment No. 49 in full as printed on the Notice Paper, and that was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock before a single squeak emerged from the Opposition benches.

The Chairman: I am sorry about that. It would help me very much if I could be dishonest, but I cannot be dishonest to the Committee. I thought—I can see I was wrong now—that the hon. Gentleman had risen on a point of order, as everyone else was doing. The fact remains that that is what I thought, and I cannot at this stage change my Ruling.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It was certainly the recollection of those of us on this side of the House that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) rose on a point of order. Indeed, one cannot understand how he would have been called at such a stage in the proceedings if he had not risen on a point of order. Therefore, I do not think there is any doubt on that aspect.

Mr. Stainton: rose—

Mr. Foot: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.

Mr. Stainton: rose—

The Chairman: We can have only one point of order at a time.

Mr. Foot: There are two other aspects of the matter which would make the device which the hon. Gentleman sought to use to disrupt the normal course of the business in the House inoperative. We see from page 506 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Amendments of which notice has been given":
If notice has been given of any amendments, the chairman calls on the Member who has given notice of the first amendment which he has decided to select.
That would be the process by which you would call an Amendment, Sir Robert. That is laid down in "Erskine May". The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge was unwittingly seeking to escape from that position.
There is also the further fact that this was Amendment No. 49 and the first Amendment you had selected was Amendment No. 96. It was not at all clear from the indications which you give to us when Amendment No. 49 would be called, if we reached that part of our proceedings. I submit this is further evidence of the difficulty which the Committee is bound to get into as long as we try to proceed with business tonight if these Amendments have not been put in an orderly manner.
It appears that there are some hon. Members who thought it would be possible to proceed by having Amendments moved by those whose names were not attached to the Amendments, that they would be able Ito do so before the Chair had called on those whose names were on the Amendments and that they would be able to move Amendments which did not appear first on the Order Paper.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge has sought to confuse the Committee, and he has been supported, it seems, by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), following representations made, apparently, by the Patronage Secretary. I do not know whether this brilliant idea came from the brain of the right hon. Gentleman. Wherever it came from, it is a magnificent illustration of the difficulties into which the Committee can get if we seek to proceed on the basis of trying to call


Amendments when we have not had a proper opportunity to sort out the Amendments which are on the Notice Paper.
Since you have said, Sir Robert, that you will not accept a Motion to report Progress from this side of the Committee, I urge the Government to consider this as being the proper way to proceed. If we continue, no doubt we shall have fresh occasions such as the attempt by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge to disrupt the business of the Committee by the use of a procedure which it is generally agreed would be condemned on every count that I have mentioned. Apparently some hon. Members opposite are seeking to press Amendments by a process which is not laid down in "Erskine May" or any other authority.
We wish the Committee to be able to escape from this situation. The only way in which it can be done, according to your Ruling, is by the Minister in charge of the Bill moving a Motion to report Progress, although, by this stage, I believe that it would be perfectly open to you to accept such a Motion from this side of the Committee. It is not a question as you suggested, of the feelings of vigour and state of health of different Members. It is a question of whether we are to proceed, when we do proceed to the Bill, in an orderly manner.
There is the further fact, of which I think the Committee is aware, that there is to be a major debate on these matters at the beginning of next week. There is to be a major debate on the position in which the Government find themselves and into which they have pushed the House of Commons on this matter. There is to be a full debate next week on the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. I suggest for all—

Mr. Rost: This is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament.

Mr. Foot: As I understand it, there will be a debate at the beginning of next week on the subject of the Government's general conduct affecting this Bill. Therefore that matter, too, has to be disposed of before the House can proceed in an orderly manner to deal with this Bill.
For all these reasons, I plead with you, Sir Robert, in the interests of the Com-

mittee either to accept a Motion to report Progress from this side or to give an opportunity to the Minister in charge of the Bill to make a similar proposal. I believe that that is much the best course in the interests of the general dignity and proper conduct of affairs of this House.

The Chairman: I still do not feel that the hour is sufficiently late for me to accept a Motion to report Progress, unless it be from those in charge of the Bill, who, as with all Bills, have the undoubted right to propose such a Motion whenever they choose. I do not propose to accept it yet, and I still hope, however vainly, that eventually we shall get to the business before the Committee.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I seek your guidance with regard to a slightly different matter concerning the statement by the Leader of the House on Thursday, 24th February—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—in response to a question which was put to him by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) during business questions. The hon. Gentleman, a Conservative Member, complained, or appeared to complain, that he was more than concerned how Members of Parliament—perhaps not himself, but Members of Parliament generally—would be able to carry out what they considered to be the double duty of taking part in proceedings in important Standing Committees and representing their constituents on this very important European Communities Bill.
The answer which was given by the Leader of the House to that question was unqualified, in my view. It can be read in HANSARD. The right hon. Gentleman—I paraphrase him now—said that he would do all in his power to see that members of Standing Committees were given a reasonable opportunity to take part in this important debate. He went on to say that he was of the opinion—naturally, he should know—that there were no Standing Committees meeting on the afternoon of Wednesday of this week. In that event, he was implying that hon. Members serving on these Standing Committees would be in a position to take part in the debate. I accept that since that particular statement—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I have not got to the point yet.

The Chairman: Interesting as it is—I do not know what to call it; what the hon. Gentleman is delivering must have a special name, I am sure—if he could give me an inkling right away as to what the point of order is I could perhaps avoid his doing what he is trying to do.

Mr. Skinner: What I am attempting to do, Sir Robert—I will not cover the grounds which I have already covered—is to draw your attention not only to that statement but to subsequent events which followed it; namely—

The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, will he give me his word that he really believes that this is a point for me?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, very much so.

The Chairman: Or does he think it is something which he can conveniently get on with a little more time, because I can see nothing which appears to be a point of order for me to rule upon.

Mr. Skinner: I will try to get to the point much quicker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House communicated with me outside the Bar of the House and informed me that he was, through the usual channels, attempting to see to it that members of Standing Committees like me, who have not been to bed since Sunday night, would be able to attend this morning. Unfortunately, communications must have gone astray since then, because we sat until 6 o'clock this morning.

Hon. Members: Yesterday.

Mr. Skinner: Yesterday. The clock is moving very quickly. I am coming now to the conclusion of my remarks, which brings me to my point of order, that after I had telephoned the Leader of the House at 12.50—not tonight, but last night—the Leader of the House said he would further communication with me on the matter.
Now we are in a rather awkward situation, even worse than last Thursday, 24th February. The Standing Committee is now going to meet at 10.30 this morning again and as yet I have not been able to get any sleep. Can we have the Leader of the House to explain his view?

The Chairman: None of that is for me.

Mr. Emery: It will be within your memory, Sir Robert, that on a point of order about 70 minutes ago you accepted that it was the responsibility of the Chair to safeguard the rights of all Members of the House. It is obviously for Mr. Speaker and Chairmen of Committees at certain times during proceedings to make it clear to the House and the Committee that there has been enough discussion on many matters and that progress has to be directed by the Chair.
May I therefore ask you whether this moment has arrived and whether it should not now be the case, after three hours without the slightest hint of progress being made at all that the Chair should call for the first Amendment to be moved before any other item or point of order is raised?

The Chairman: Unfortunately, I cannot do that, because as soon as somebody rises to a point of order I am bound to take that point of order. If hon. Members choose to abuse the rules of the House in doing that, it is no affair of mine.
I am trying to see a new face. Mr. Charles Morris.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: It will be within your recollection, Sir Robert, that points of order were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the availability of documents. You said that at one juncture you would reply to those points. At what juncture are we to receive your considered views on those submissions?

The Chairman: I think that is fair. I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. He is not here, but perhaps he has tired of waiting for me. I shall rule on the question of documents in the same way as I have already. I have had the opportunity, like the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), of reading the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster at that time. It was on a very narrow point indeed, and I do not think it is strictly germane to our proceedings; so I stand by what I have been saying


in these proceedings all along, that I have no power to compel the Government to lay documents and we must rely on the Government to lay documents as it is appropriate. I have no doubt that as we go along and it becomes appropriate and occasion arises they will do so. There is nothing more I can do about it.
The matter of the Scottish Standing Committee is not for me. The Scottish Standing Committee is a law unto itself. There is nothing I can do to further the business of the Committee in relation to the discovery of documents.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I regret that I am unable to tell you, Sir Robert, what happens on the Scottish Grand Committee, but I hope one of my hon. Friends will catch your eye and raise this matter on a point of order.
It is an extraordinary experience for me as a comparatively new Member of the House to listen closely to what has gone on this evening. The question has been raised whether it is appropriate for an hon. Member to move an Amendment which stands in the name of another hon. Member. This appears to me to be appropriate where the hon. Members concerned have come to an agreement, but where there has been no agreement and an Amendment standing in the name of one hon. Member is moved by another hon. Member, that appears to be a formula for bullying, if not for a worse kind of totalitarianism.
As there are many Amendments, the question will probably arise again, and I should like your guidance on whether it is appropriate for one hon. Member to move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member without mutual agreement.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that I have ruled on this matter. There is nothing in the rules of order to prevent an hon. Member moving an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John Silkin: It is now three hours since the Leader of the House was here.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order. You, Sir Robert, have given many Rulings tonight in the past three hours to which the Committee has listened with a patience equalling your own. You have ruled that it is not possible for the Chair to call on an hon. Member to move an Amendment whilst other hon. Members seek to catch your eye on a point of order. We accept that, but you will have noticed that there has been some repetition of points of order, and I hope it is within your power to cut short hon. Members who seek to raise points of order on which you have already ruled.

1.30 a.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must leave it to me to deal with matters as I see best.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: On a brand new point of order, Sir Robert. You said about an hour ago that you had, by our rules, to remain in the Chair for as long as points of order continued. Is it not a fact that from the point of view of your physical endurance the will of Parliament could be frustrated by points of order being raised until your physical endurance had been worn down? Should you not hand over the Chair at a certain point to one of your colleagues on the Panel of Chairmen?

The Chairman: I am greatly obliged for the hon. Member's solicitude, and perhaps I overstated the position originally. I do not think there is anything sacrosanct about my remaining in the Chair. It is, generally speaking, convenient if whoever is in the Chair when a series of points of order begins remains in the Chair to preserve continuity; but I might avail myself of the hon. Member's suggestion a little later. Meanwhile, I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is anxious to put a point of order to me, and I would like to hear it

Mr. Heffer: My point of order, Sir Robert, concerns an earlier Ruling in which you may have been mistaken. "Erskine May" says on page 506:
After the first appearance of an amendment on the notice paper, the names of Members attached to it are reduced to six, but the names of Members who subsequently support it are printed below"—


and there is then a reference to note (m) at the bottom of the page, and that note reads:
If the Member in charge of the Bill adds his name to an amendment his name appears at the top.
the passage continues:
and to the right hand side of those six names on one occasion only. This arrangement, which was begun in connection with the committee stage of the National Insurance Bill in session 1911, has been adopted for the committee stages of all public bills and for bills before the standing committees. If the Member or Members who have given notice of an amendment are absent, or do not desire to move it, the amendment can be moved by any other member of the committee".
Two conditions are laid down there; the first is that the hon. Member or hon. Members are absent and the second is that they do not desire to move it. It cannot be argued in this case that either of those conditions has been met. It is surely not correct to say, therefore, that any other hon. Member may move the Amendment. May I ask you to consider whether, obviously unwittingly, you may have misled the Committee by your earlier Ruling on this subject?

The Chairman: I see what the hon. Member is driving at, but it is a question of the interpretation one puts on the word "desire". A perfectly valid interpretation would be that they did not intend to move it at the time, and that would not preclude literally any other hon. Member moving it—[Interruption.]—but this is an entirely academic point because I have already ruled that as long as someone rises to a point of order no one else may rise from another part of the Committee and move an Amendment, such as has been tried. So we are not furthering our proceedings by this because it is not germane to anything we are considering.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Cormack: With all due respect to the Chair, Sir Robert, it is right that you should call hon. Members from each side of the Committee alternately.
Further to the point of order just raised, Sir Robert, I want to indicate, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), that he did what he sought to do because the business of the House was being mani-

festly frustrated. There is ample opportunity for the fullest possible debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I am sure that you, Sir Robert, will correct me if I am wrong in that. All these tremendously important issues, which are as important to my hon. Friends as they are to hon. Members opposite, can be debated at great length by any hon. Member who wishes to speak during the Committee stage.
My hon. Friend sought to move the Amendment because he felt that we ought to have at least the beginning of a debate before the Committee rose. I was delighted to try to support him. He was the person who was behaving with due deference to the democratic traditions of the House of Commons, which have been frustrated continually tonight. Some form of magisterial rebuke from you, Sir Robert, is now called for.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is an abuse of the rules of the House going on. There is no doubt that the situation which we have in hand now is not a normal one. I think that hon. Members know in their hearts that it is not normal, and that they are deliberately trying to frustrate the business of the Committee. It is their business if they do so. If they choose to make a mockery of our parliamentary proceedings by not allowing them to continue, that must lie at their door. Nevertheless, I have to see that the rules of the House are carried out, and as long as hon. Members choose to rise to speak to me on points of order—

Mr. John Mendelson: Perfectly in order.

The Chairman: —there is nothing I can do to stop them. Be it upon their own consciences.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Mr. Orme.

Mr. Stanley Orme: When the Committee had that rebuke from the Chairman of Ways and Means, he should have directed his remarks also to the Government side. The Chairman of Ways and Means is beginning—if he is not careful—to become involved in the politics of the Bill—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. John Mendelson: Very near to it.

Mr. Orme: I say this—

An Hon. Member: In all seriousness?

Mr. Orme: Yes, in all seriousness. When earlier the Chairman was asked about reporting Progress, he said, rather flippantly, that it was early in the evening and that we would see how we went on, and that he would not contemplate it within the immediate or even near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) made the point to the Government at the beginning that we had many valid points to make and that we should not start on the Bill until next week. We have now been discussing it for about four hours, and we have not started to debate Amendments. I do not believe, Mr. Mallalieu, that the Government are going to make progress. In the interest of the House the Chair should reconsider whether it is appropriate to accept a Motion to report Progress.
The attitude of the Chairman, who has just left the Chair, puts the Committee in a very difficult position. I and my hon. Friends do not want to drag the Chairman into the politics of the Bill, but I am afraid he is putting himself in that position.
I believe it is now in the interest of the House for the Chair to weigh up the impasse that has now been reached and consider the war of attrition that the Government are trying to wage on the Opposition and accept a Motion to report Progress. Some of us are used to the Government acting in this way. We went through the Industrial Relations Bill, and we know what the Government did in a democratic manner on that occasion.
You should now accept a Motion, Mr. Mallalieu, similar to that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I am sure one of my hon. Friends would be quite willing to move it. I suggest that you address the Government in the way the Chairman never did and ask the Ministers in charge of the Bill if they do not consider, in the interests of making progress and of not creating a great deal of friction in the early hours, with hon. Members having to go on to

Standing Committees in the morning, that such a Motion would be appropriate. I believe the Government were advised by one of my right hon. Friends that to report Progress after the vote at 10 p.m. and to sit next week would be in the interest of everyone. He did so, I know, not to delay the Bill but so that it could have an automatic start at 3.30 next Monday. We are therefore in a very difficult situation.
We shall have to go through a long hot summer on the Bill, as well as through the spring, and there will be a great deal of argument, passion and debate. But it was absolutely essential from the Government's point of view that they should get off to a correct start. I believe they were panicked into this by some of their back benchers, who were asking for a fight to be put on tonight. The Chair and its advisers should consider making a recommendation to the Government in the interest of business and of the House. A Motion to report Progress should be accepted, to let us get on with our business later today and return to the Bill when the real political battle will have to begin next week.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Pavitt: I first ask your guidance, Mr. Mallalieu, on an entirely new point of order that has arisen from the recent events in the House. If an hon. Member seeks to move an Amendment but fails to do so, is it then imperative, and a rule of the House, that his vote should follow his voice?
Secondly, on the question of papers being necessary for the proper discussion of the Bill, I wish to raise an entirely fresh point, which does not arise from the incident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). I was in the House on the evening to which he referred, and I remember the incident only too well. It created a parliamentary precedent, as far as I am aware.
When we discuss the Bill, we shall have the problem, of the right interpretation of the Treaty, one of the papers that hon. Members on both sides have been requesting. I have the Treaty of Rome in a 1959 edition—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The laying of papers has been dealt with many times. It is not a point of order,


for the Chair has no power to order the laying of papers.

Mr. Pavitt: With due respect, Mr. Mallalieu, I know the whole question of papers has been raised. I am raising a new point, that the copy of Article 58 of the Treaty of Rome in the Library has one effect upon the medical profession of this country and the 1959 translation that I have has a totally different effect. Therefore, when the Committee discusses Clause 1, and especially one of the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), it will find the situation different if the copy in the Library is the basis for discussion instead of the other version. This point should be taken into consideration on the question of the necessary documentation to deal with the Amendments, and especially for the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

The Second Deputy Chairman: As that comes from the hon. Gentleman, I should be very surprised if it were not true, but whether it is true or untrue it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order. Twelve minutes ago the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the Chairman of Ways and Means was becoming involved in the politics of the Bill.

Mr. Orme: In danger of becoming involved.

Mr. Emery: I took down what I believed was said. If that is what was said, is it not imputing that the Chair is taking a political view and not the unbiased and entirely independent position it has always taken? Should not that remark be immediately withdrawn as an imputation on the Chair?

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has urged that we should proceed with the Bill. Since saying that, he has risen several times on points of order which have helped to prevent progress. He should make up his mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), quite correctly and wisely, warned that there was a danger of the Chairman of Ways and Means

getting involved in the politics of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a criticism of the Chair, the way to do it, as he should know from the experience of these last two days, is by putting down a substantive Motion. That I do not understand him to be attempting to do. I think that he was making passing reference towards the Chair. I hope he will not dwell on that too much.

Mr. Molloy: I was not making a passing reference but correcting the hon. Member for Honiton's incorrect impression of what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Member, rightly, also raised the question of freedom of speech, but his idea of freedom of speech seems to be that the Opposition should behave as he feels they should. I submit that we should adhere to "Erskine May", which says on page 70, dealing with "Necessity of Freedom of Speech":
Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature. Its principle was well stated by the Commons, at a conference on 11th December, 1667, the conference which resulted in the reversal of the conviction in 1629 of Sir John Eliot and others:
'No man can doubt,' they said, 'but whatever is once enacted is lawful, but nothing can come into an Act of Parliament, but it must first be affirmed or propounded by somebody: so that if the Act can wrong nobody, no more can the first propounding. The members must be as free as the houses; an Act of Parliament cannot disturb the state; therefore the debate that tends to it cannot; for it must be propounded and debated before it can be enacted'.
We are attempting to do this.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not a point of order in Committee, however interesting it may be as a statement from "Erskine May."

Mr. Molloy: I will explain why I think it is a point of order. I suggest that there has never been a Committee stage in the history of the House of Commons like this one. "Erskine May" was not written in one week; it was the work of centuries. The probability is that we are contributing to it tonight in the interests of freedom—and, as some of my hon. Friend would say—the safety of our State.
I beg you to consider, Mr. Mallalieu, what has been submitted by many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members


opposite—that since we have got ourselves into difficulties the Minister in charge should now take the advice given by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and report Progress and ask leave to sit again so that a fresh and intelligent start can be made on one of the most important Bills ever presented in the House of Parliament.

Mr. Crouch: I seek to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) relating to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who made a disgraceful attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means, suggesting that in the exercise of his position as Chairman of the Committee tonight he had been partial polititically. That is not the normal type of behaviour indulged in by the hon. Member for Salford, West. This is the first time that the hon. Member has intervened, and perhaps the lateness of the hour caused him to exceed his normal careful deliberation in pursuing and presenting his views.
I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Salford, West whether he is prepared to withdraw his allegation. I would point out that in the witness of hon. Members the Chairman of Ways and Means has been handling the debate with the greatest patience, impartiality and dignity. What we lack in this debate is stronger leadership from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to control his own irresponsible Members, who have been continuing to raise spurious points of order for the last four hours.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I need not return to them.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Directly before he left the Chair, Sir Robert used the word "mockery" in the answer that he was making to certain points of order. I should be the last to try to deny the Chairman of the Committee the opportunity of making his opinion known, but I think that he might want to think again about the use of the word "mockery" in the circumstances.
Can you tell us, Mr. Mallalieu, whether Sir Robert is likely to return to the

Chair during this sitting, so that we can take up this point with him? I am sure that he would not want us to go for any length of time between this and our next sitting making speculations about his use of the word "mockery".

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sillars: I took grave exception to the remark made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), that the Chair had been inundated with specious points of order. Earlier this evening I made a submission to the Chair in relation to certain documents that should be laid on the Table, and I received no reply from Sir Robert. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) tried to elicit an answer when I received no reply, but he was not fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. Some time later my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point of order without taking more time?

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Sillars: I am aware that you have only recently come to the Chair, Mr. Mallalieu, and I was seeking to assist you. My right hon. Friend made an important point about the Scottish Grand Committee, saying that it was the practice there for all relevant papers and documents to be laid on the Table, and if they were not the Chairman has been known to adjourn the Committee—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This point has been dealt with several times. I hope the hon. Member will not persist with it.

Mr. Sillars: I am sorry to seem to be arguing with the Chair, Mr. Mallalieu. Your predecessor in the Chair, replying to my right hon. Friend, said that he did not have any knowledge of what went on in Scottish Standing Committees and gave the clear impression that he did not care much what went on. That may be unfair, but it was my interpretation of the manner in which he said it. That is not good enough for us. The practices of Standing Committees are borrowed from the rules governing debate in the Chamber. If the Chairman of Ways and Means says he does not think what


happens in our Committees is important we may find that things we have taken for granted in them—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not in Scottish Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman must use a little more ingenuity.

Mr. Sillars: One problem of Scottish Members is that we cannot bring to bear the intellectual might of English-oriented Members.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Is that a point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Sillars: Yes, it is, because the Chair has to preserve the rights of back benchers. I have pointed out how an hon. Member confused England with the United Kingdom and used the term as synonymous. My point is that any decision made here can be translated to a Standing Committee concerned with Scottish affairs and affect the long-standing rights of that Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have told the hon. Member several times that that is not a matter for the Chair. The laying of documents is not for the Chair. It is in accordance with the practices of the House and it is not in the power of the Chair to alter it.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I would like to address you on an entirely original point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Your predecessor in the Chair a few moments ago accused the party opposite of making a mockery of the procedures of the Committee. I would not quarrel with that because we have all heard a number of frivolous points of order raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the last two or three hours. I appeal to you in the interests of humanity. In my view, you and your predecessor have shown patience, good humour and pertinacity in listening to us. The fault does not lie with you, Mr. Mallalieu, or with the Chairman of Ways and Means that we are in this difficulty, but with the Government because they have tried to introduce a fraudulent and unconstitutional piece of legislation. When this House is threatened with having its powers and rights undermined by an unconstitutional piece of legislation, it is

bound to defend itself by whatever is the most effective means.
Therefore, I suggest that, in the interests of the constitutional survival of the House and the physical survival of the Chairman of Ways and Means, by far the best course in all our interests, including your own, Mr. Mallalieu, would be for you to intimate to the Government by whatever are the appropriate or usual channels that the time has come when a Motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again should be moved and accepted.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, I should like to support the point of order of my hon. Friend, but on another ground. A number of hon. Members have taken a great interest in the proceeding relating to the E.E.C. from the very beginning, in particular the Liberal Party, who are not here tonight—

Mr. Orme: Or any night.

Mr. Davis: They may have made a decision not to participate beyond a certain hour. Whatever views one may form about the activities of the Liberal Party, they have taken a great interest in this subject. They are to be denied the opportunity of debate unless the House is allowed to adjourn. That equally applies to other independent Members. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Get to the point of order."] The point of order is that it would be an abuse of the House if we were to consider these matters in the absence of these people, who have certain minority rights, about which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) prattled for so long.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order. I make no apology for seeking to make a little progress. Would it not now be in order, Mr. Mallalieu, for you to ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to move his Amendment? He must know why he wishes to move it. Once the debate had begun, we could then adjourn and go home.

Mr. Loughlin: Oh, they want to go home.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. It will be in your recollection, Mr. Mallalieu, that your predecessor in the Chair admonished certain


hon. Members because he contended that they were making a mockery of Parliament. I believe that that was directed against the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who tried to move the Amendment. Nothing could bring this House into disrepute more quickly than what they were trying to do—move an Amendment with which their names were not associated and which they would have voted against. That would be making a mockery of our parliamentary democracy.
I have been a Member for a fair number of years. [Interruption.] I shall be a Member longer than many hon. Members opposite. They come and go like butterflies. Sir Robert gave a Ruling tonight which seemed to be a completely fresh one. In essence, he said that he could not accept from the Opposition a Motion to report Progress, but he could accept such a Motion from the Government. I have never understood that that was solely the prerogative of the Government.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Is the right hon. Member putting to me that I should reverse a Ruling made by my predecessor in the Chair this evening?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am putting to you, Mr. Mallalieu, a question about what has governed the Committee of the whole House for all the time that I have been a Member. I want to know whether throughout the proceedings on this Bill the Chair will rule that no Motion to report Progress moved by the Opposition will be accepted. That, I think, would be an affront and completely out of keeping with what has happened over the years in which I have been a Member. I should like to have your Ruling on that.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member cannot expect me to go back on a Ruling which has been made earlier this evening.

Mr. Fernyhough: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Second Deputy Chairman: If that is moved now from any quarter, I am afraid that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Buchan: I want to follow the point of order which has just been submitted. I do not think the House in Committee can find itself in a situation in which the Chair can at any time say that never in any event can it alter a previous Ruling. If previous Rulings are wrong, it is necessary for the wellbeing of the House that those Rulings should be altered. Secondly, there is the direct and simple question as to whether the Opposition have the right to seek that a Motion be put. I do not think we have had a satisfactory answer to that.
The point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was extremely important. It related to documents being made available to the Committee. A point which was alarming and which we should like you to reconsider, Mr. Mallalieu, was that it was not necessary, nor did it matter, what went on in a Scottish Committee. Our anxiety arises from the fact that what happens in the Committee of the whole House can spread to other Committees. On this the rules for other Committees are based. Production of a number of documents has been refused. The question that has arisen is to what extent further Amendments may be worthy of consideration. The first Amendment came after a period of reflection, and it may be that a further period of reflection might lead to further Amendments being considered.
2.15 a.m.
Involved in a number of the Amendments which so far have not been allowed by the Chair are matters which are already written into yet another treaty; namely, the Act of Union in relation to Scotland and England. In particular, I would draw attention to Article XVIII of the Treaty of Union. It says:
That the Laws concerning regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises, to which Scotland is by virtue of this treaty to be lyable, be the same in Scotland, from and after the Union as in England; and that all other Laws, in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by Parliament of Great Britain.
I come to the crux of the matter in regard to the refusal of Amendments, on


which we ask for a period of reflection. It goes on to say:
With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy, and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
The point which arises, and which has become extremely important, is that the Act of Union on the question of private rights in Scotland cannot be altered except for the utility of the subjects within Scotland. If any one of the Amendments which so far have not been selected impinge on this Act, this calls in question the whole Treaty of Union.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has spoken for a number of minutes and so far I can detect no point of order.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but I thought I had made clear that an Act exists in this country in relation to the laws of Scotland and the laws of England and that a distinction is made in that treaty. It makes a difference between private right and public right and says that this cannot be altered except in relation to Scotland.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am in the Chair in Committee seeking to make progress with a certain Bill. The hon. Member is talking about completely different things and is raising no point of order whatever.

Mr. Buchan: This illustrates the difficulty which has arisen, because on every single one of the Amendments I would ask you to adjourn the Committee to reconsider this problem of public right policy.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order, The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no power to reconsider these Amendments.

Mr. Buchan: The point that I am coming to is not whether you have the right now, but that we need to give ourselves time for reflection. Already after a period of reflection one further Amendment has been brought forward. We now seek to move a Motion to report Progress so that further reflection can be brought to bear. I should like to ask

whether this section of the Act of Union was part of the argument which did not allow these Amendments to be considered. If it were not, we require that reflection to be given.
For these reasons, I ask you again that such a Motion should be accepted in the interests of the political health of the country, of the union between Scotland and England, and of the rights of the people of Britain.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Reconsideration of selection is not for me—

Mr. Buchan: It has happened today already.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is not for me in the Chair to reconsider selection—

Mr. Russell Kerr: Send for the organ grinder.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Renfrew. West (Mr. Buchan) knows that perfectly well. As for a Motion to report Progress, I have already said "No" to that within the last five minutes.

Mr. Buchan: If it is not up to the Chair to reconsider selection, who brought forward Amendment No. 49? Can he be asked to reconsider?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is the Chairman of Ways and Means who does this, and not the present occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Many of my hon. Friends may still have points of order to raise, and they are entitled to do so. But I have a suggestion to make to the Committee on a point of order which may be of some assistance. I make it partly in response to what was said by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who seemed to make the suggestion in a slightly different form from that suggested by other hon. Members. I think it has some attraction.
I have argued throughout the whole of this evening's proceedings that the proper way for the Committee to proceed was for a Motion to report Progress to be accepted, when either we could have a discussion on the Motion or it could be carried, and the matter could go through


on that basis. I understand that the Government have resisted that. I think that they have been wrong to resist it, because the points of order raised have been substantial ones from all sides, and it would have been better for the Government to have agreed quite unconditionally to move a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Notwithstanding that, I suggest that the Minister in charge of the Bill should move such a Motion. We could then have a discussion about how we should deal subsequently with the matters before the Committee. Such a Motion would enable the Committee to discuss matters openly in the hearing of everyone. Everyone would know what had been arranged. I have had no discussions with hon. Members opposite on these matters, but if such a Motion were moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill probably it would be accepted by the Chair.
The Government are asking that we should proceed to the first group of Amendments and to move them. We have the strongest objections to proceeding to that discussion, because we wish to look at the form of the Amendments in the light of the earlier decision of the House. We also wish to look at those Amendments in the light of the changed Ruling of the Chair about the Amendments which can be selected and the change in the arrangements which arises generally. So we are not in favour of proceeding to a discussion of those Amendments. That is one reason why we have raised these matters, which we think are substantial and should have been considered and could have been better dealt with by the methods we have proposed. However, the Committee is in this difficulty.
I suggest that if the Minister will move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again we can then have a discussion, in which my hon. Friends can take part, on how we should proceed. If the Minister will move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, I can then make my comments on how we should proceed. However, I cannot exclude any of my hon. Friends from taking part in the discussion, although I shall not encourage them to do so, because I shall make a suggestion as to how we should proceed when we have a debate on the Motion, which would then be in order.
When that Motion is withdrawn and we return to the question whether we should go to the Committee stage, I should then get up and formally move the group of Amendments under No. 96, which leaves out the question of No. 49 which we wish to consider to see how it affects—

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend is giving way.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friends, if they disagree with what I am saying, are entitled to make their own speeches. I am safeguarding their rights to put their views before the Committee. I am not disputing their right to do so and the Government have no right to dispute it. I am trying to help solve the situation in the interests of the Committee, if my hon. Friends will only listen to what I have to say. If they disagree with what I am suggesting, they will have their full democratic rights protected to be able to put their views and they may be able to persuade me or the Government.
I understand that the Government, under the point of order which I am raising—I admit that it is a rather extended point of order—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): It is reporting progress.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to a method to get him out of his difficulties he is not being sensible. I am making a suggestion to help the Minister. Possibly the best assistance that the Minister of Agriculture can give is to leave the Chamber.
I will repeat my suggestion so that there is no misunderstanding. If the Minister will propose a Motion to report Progress and that is accepted by the Chair, we shall then be in a position to have an orderly discussion on the Motion and anybody can speak as to the next procedure. If it comes to that stage, I will be prepared, if the Motion is withdrawn, to move formally the first group of Amendments. Then, if there is this undertaking and agreement by the Government that they will immediately move again the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, I


am sure that at that stage the Committee would be prepared to concur.
If my hon. Friends disagree with the proposal which I am making, they are, of course, perfectly entitled to put their arguments when the Motion is moved to report Progress. I am seeking to escape from the deadlock in which the Committee is now caught in a way which I think protects both sides.
2.30 a.m.
I understand that the Government think that their prestige is at stake. I do not think that they are right to believe that and I have been trying all evening to persuade them that it is not, but if they believe that their prestige is at stake on the formal moving of the first Amendment, I will move it formally. I am not prepared to make the general statement of the case for the first group of Amendments because I still hold the view that we have a right to examine them and the fresh situation which has arisen because of the Ruling of the Chair at the beginning of our proceedings.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. Foot: The trouble about giving way is that I am on a point of order and we have been told we must not give way when we are on points of order. That is a reasonable proposition.
That is the way I see out of the difficulty. I have had no discussions with anybody about it, but have merely considered what I thought was a reasonable way of trying to approach the matter.
I cannot give guarantees to the Government of what will happen if they move to report Progress except that if they do, I will carry out the proposition I have suggested.
Some of my hon. Friends have raised points of order and others may wish to do so, and some might be more in order on a Motion to report Progress than they would be as points of order. That is a risk the Government must take in trying to escape.
I would repeat to the hon. Member for Cannock that the suggestion I have made is in full accord with what he suggested. It is an elaboration of it, and it was an attempt to deal with the situation. I believe it is a perfectly reasonable proposal, but the first stage in it is

that the Minister should rise to move to report Progress.

Mr. Emery: Am I in order to try to obtain some assistance for the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Opposition Front Bench, taking his suggestion in all honesty as fair and an attempt to be reasonable?
You will realise, Mr. Mallalieu, that there is a possible worry connected with the suggestion which might affect you in the Chair. If the Government move to report Progress, all that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Opposition Front Bench said could be carried out, but it is more than possible that a Motion to report Progress might take up to four or five hours.
I know that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) cannot undertake to control all his hon. Friends and there might be a number of points they wish to make. Can we have an understanding from the hon. Member that if the Government took such action he and the Chief Whip would do what they could to ensure that debate was not protracted, nor that it was debate just to waste time?

Mr. Foot: The exchanges which are now taking place between the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and me and which would take place with the Minister if what I have proposed appealed to him, would take place much better on a Motion to report Progress. I have been arguing that throughout the evening, and that is the best and proper way for the House to deal with the question.
When the Committee is in trouble as to how to proceed with its business, the way to solve it is by a Motion which halts the discussion, so that it can see the way it is going. That is what a Motion to report Progress means.
When the hon. Member for Honiton asks if I can give guarantees of what my hon. Friends will do, I say that it is not a question of guarantees. If they so wish, my hon. Friends have a perfect right to enter such a debate. I am not inciting them to, nor would I stop them as one who has taken part in many debates on such Motions. My hon. Friends may points. I cannot give any guarantee not that have already been presented, and I have no right to tell them not to put their points. I cannot give any guarantee not to listen to what they say and take it into account. I do not want anyone to be


under a misapprehension about this, and I want my hon. Friends to understand exactly what I am proposing. They will be as free as I am to recommend to the House what they think is the proper course.
The prestige of hon. Members opposite is at stake. To show what a great tight they have won they want to be able to go home to their wives and families and say that the first group of Amendments has been formally moved, so that they can go home in triumph.
Many points of order of major consequence have been raised by my hon. Friends. I and those who are associated with the group of Amendments are opposed to proceeding with discussion on the Bill for two reasons. First, we do not believe that the form in which the Amendments are presented to the Committee is clear, and the Committee has not had proper opportunity to consider the fresh Amendments which the Chair has accepted and how the various Amendments fit into one another. Secondly, there will be a debate at the beginning of next week on a Motion to censure the Government on this question, and this is a matter which would be better dealt with before we proceed to Committee stage.
The Government have to take some risks in moving the Motion, but I will carry out my part of the bargain. [Laughter.] I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are jeering at this suggestion that it is not within my power to say to my hon. Friends that they have no right to make their representations to the Committee. I would never have tolerated that when I was a back bencher, and I do not propose to change my principles now I am on the Front Bench. My proposal is the fairest proposal for making progress that has been made for making progress for a long time. If the Government take the risk we shall probably conclude matters earlier than we might otherwise have done. I am not all that optimistic, but I think we have a chance of succeeding, so let us try it. We have not much to lose. Why not regularise the proceedings, have a discussion on the Motion to report Progress and see how we proceed? I will make the response I have promised to make. What will happen

will depend on the course of the debate, but at least we shall regularise the proceedings and escape from trying to deal with these matters by points of order.
It would give the Government their futile triumph. It would not give them any real triumph, but it would apparently give them a fig leaf to take home. As far as we are concerned, it would protect what we are most concerned about. A decision not to embark now on the Committee stage would give us a chance to look at the Amendments and their form, and make representations to the Table Office and to the Chair, as it has encouraged us to do during these points of order. [Interruption.] The Minister of Agriculture would do the best service to the Government and the country by clearing off back to the Smoking Room. Every interruption he makes only renders the business more difficult. The Government would be wise to consider proceeding on the basis I have suggested.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman says that we have not much to lose by accepting his proposition. There does not appear to be very much to gain by it either. He is wrong in saying that this is a matter of prestige for the Government. It may be a matter of prestige for the Opposition in that they cannot accept the rulings of the Chair and the decision of the House.
We were certainly given the impression yesterday by the hon. Gentleman that if we acceded to his request then and proceeded with discussion of Amendments without prejudice to any decision which might be taken today he would expect to have an orderly progress thereafter. I think that the only way we can hope to restore the dignity of the Committee is by accepting a return to the traditional proprieties and acceptance of the rules of order.
I make a fair suggestion to the hon. Gentleman that, in accordance with the assurance he gave yesterday, he might at least start the proceedings in Committee not just by formally moving his Amendments but by moving them in the proper way and initiating a discussion. Perhaps it is reasonable that we should not at this stage bring that discussion to a conclusion, but it would help many hon. Members to know what it is that he has in mind in the Amendments, which now ought to be proceeded with.

Mr. Foot: On a point or order, Sir Robert. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking to a point of order, but the kind of discussion, proposition, suggestion or argument that he has put to the Committee is, I submit, exactly the kind of argument which should be put to the Committee on a Motion to report Progress. Indeed, you may consider that what he has said was out of order.

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I must be the judge of whether what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was in or out of order. The Committee will agree that I have given a great deal of latitude to hon. Members. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should begrudge it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that it was because of the latitude you have given that you permitted the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what he did, Sir Robert. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite, particularly when we are facing a long Committee stage, if we reach it, must learn the provisions and rules and usages of the Committee. If they do, they will find out what Motions to report Progress are—precisely to enable a Minister to make the kind of statement just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point or order.
I want to correct one thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, which I certainly would have thought to be out of order. He said I had broken some assurance to him. I did not give any assurance to him, either tonight or last night, about these matters, so he must not talk as if I had broken any assurance. His charge is absolutely false. I did not give him any assurance last night. He knows that very well. He has only just cooked it up.
2.45 a.m.
I come to the major matter. What I have suggested is an escape from the situation. All we have had is a response in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spurned the offer completely. Not merely is he not prepared to put these discussions in proper order; he makes no response. I responded to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). I thought we might be able to ease the position of the Com-

mittee as a whole. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for the continuance of this situation if it goes on.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Albert Booth: On a point of order. My point of order, Sir Robert, bears no relation to the selection of Amendments on the Paper but is about the order of those Amendments. You are reported, Sir Robert, as saying yesterday:
Let me say at the outset that, in regard to the majority of the Amendments on the Paper, the question is not a question of selection but one of order. That is to say, most of the Amendments—indeed, all of the more important Amendments—have been omitted not in virtue of my power of selection but because they are out of order and could not be called in any circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 268.]
That is to say, Amendments which you, Sir Robert, hold to be important Amendments as such could not be taken as Amendments to Clause 1 because they were out of order on that Clause.
You will appreciate, Sir Robert, that Parliament is very sensitive about its method of control over the Bill, not only because it is an important piece of legislation but also because the final form it will take will affect the extent of the control and scrutiny over future Community legislation which Parliament can exercise. Therefore, would you indicate, Sir Robert, whether these Amendments which are, in your words, important Amendments, although out of order on Clause 1, might in some form be in order on a subsequent Clause? If you could indicate, Sir Robert, whether that was the case, it would aid us in the tabling of subsequent Amendments and enable us to consider in a different way the problem which arose over selection yesterday.

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courteous and excellent way in which he has put his point of order. I cannot, obviously, prejudge at this stage what I would deem to be in order on Clause 2. But I should be very glad to see the hon. Gentleman, either alone or with my advisers, at any time, to help him with what might be put down and might be in order on Clause 2 when the time comes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. May I, Sir Robert, correct one misunderstanding which may have arisen from what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said just now, when he said that he gave no assurance yesterday? I notice from HANSARD that at about 6 p.m. yesterday the hon. Member said:
The Leader of the House should now propose that the Chairman ask leave to report Progress and beg leave to sit again. Such a Motion would presumably be accepted by the Chair.
The hon. Member went on to say:
If the Government did that, I presume that the Motion would be carried very soon and we should proceed to the debate tomorrow.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 302.]
That seemed to me to be a fairly categorical—

Mr. Foot: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am on a point of order.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Chairman: Hon. Members should not object to a little shouting. They do plenty themselves.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thought I was only helping by reminding hon. Members that I was on a point of order because I always understood that it was out of order to interrupt an hon. Member when he was already speaking on a point of order. It seemed to me that the words which I quoted qualify to some extent what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said when he said that he gave no assurance yesterday.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I can apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him while he was on a point of order. I would not like there to be any misunderstanding about an assurance. When a reference was made to the debate proceeding the following day, that referred to the debate on the substantive Motion which took place earlier, as will be seen from the context of what the hon. Gentleman has read out.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is slightly mistaken because at that time he had not referred to the Motion of censure. That does not occur until four columns later.

Mr. Foot: I beg your pardon, Sir Robert, for proceeding further with the point. When the hon. Gentleman examines the point afresh he will see that he is mistaken. I referred earlier to the possibility of a substantive Motion and he will see that I was clearly referring to it. I do not think he or the Minister has the right to suggest I made any assurance which I have broken.

Mr. Frank Judd: I rise on what I believe to be a new point of order which refers to "Erskine May" at page 275,
Manner of notifying weekly programme of Government business".
It states very clearly that
Government orders of the day are marked in the Notice Paper with a star to distinguish them from those of private Members. An Order Book showing the orders standing for future days is brought out daily and a copy showing the state of the Order Book at the end of each week is circulated to Members (see page 245). For the purpose of informing the House what items of Government business (and in what order of precedence) it is intended to take on Government days, a statement which covers the whole of the following week is made every Thursday normally by the Leader of the House, in reply to a Question by the Leader of the Opposition. The order of business thus notified is seldom varied without a supplementary statement.
Was this action taken, Sir Robert? I notice that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who normally sit on the Liberal bench, who have made it absolutely clear that they believe the whole subject to be of absolutely supreme importance for the nation, are not with us. I can only believe the explanation for their absence is that the proper procedures as laid down in "Erskine May" have not been fulfilled.

The Chairman: I think the answer to the point is in the word that the hon. Member has overlooked, which is "seldom". "Seldom" means that the practice may be varied sometimes and that is how it applies now.

Mr. Cormack: I would like to set the record straight. I was very flattered by the ingenious response to my suggestion from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I suggested that if he was prepared to move his Amendment and make his speech, because he must obviously know what he


wishes to say, that would be an acceptable way of bringing our proceedings to a satisfactory close.

The Chairman: I had always hoped that something like that might happen, but it does not seem that it will.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have sat through nearly all these proceedings, Sir Robert, and the first time I sought to catch your eye was when you left the Chair. I have sat through many of the debates on the E.E.C. legislation and taken part in none of them, apart from one intervention to the Minister of Agriculture, because I had such tremendous confidence in my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). But I wish now to raise a couple of matters of order arising from the situation since the Divisions.
In the last Session I had the good fortune to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to abolish wild hare coursing. In the course of a subterfuge to try to flush out the opposition to the Bill, two of the sponsors acted as Tellers for the Noes. The Ayes won, and the following day Mr. Speaker King made an order striking out the names of the two sponsors who had acted as Tellers for the Noes because of the rule on the collection of voices. Under that rule, the hon. Members for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and Cannock (Mr. Cormack) having indicated which way they intend to vote by seeking to move the first Amendment, are they precluded from voting against the Amendment?
This is the second Bill of its type in a fortnight on which, for proper reasons, as Chairman of Ways and Means, you have ruled that certain types of Amendments may not be accepted. The first was the Northern Ireland Bill, passed last Wednesday. I understand that the reason was that the legislation concerned was declaratory, and therefore we had considerable difficulty in devising Amendments to show approval or disapproval. The Northern Ireland Bill gave sweeping powers to a subordinate legislature under a most repressive system of law known as the Special Powers Act. How can you, Sir Robert, as Chairman of our Committee—

The Chairman: Can the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? There is a danger of my losing the thread of his argument before he gets there.

Mr. McNamara: My point is that the Bill is the second piece of this type of legislation, drafted by the Government deliberately to try to stifle amendment and criticism.
I appeal to you, Sir Robert, as one of the custodians of our privileges, to say how best we can ensure that such legislation is not presented in the future, so that we may preserve our rights and exercise our proper function as legislators seeking to amend Government proposals.
3.0 a.m.
The hon. Member for Cannock seemed to be under the impression that when we came to debate the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we could discuss virtually anything, including the Amendments which had been ruled out of order, and in his assumed capacity as Deputy Leader of the House he seemed to think that neither the Patronage Secretary nor one of my hon. Friends could move the Closure. I hope you will guide us, Sir Robert, on these three points; the collection of voices, the type of legislation and the question of the Closure.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has raised three points. On the first, about voting, I suggest that we leave that until it arises. On the second, the drafting of Bills, that is not a responsibility of the Chair. On the third regarding debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", that too is hypothetical and must wait for that time, whereupon I or whoever is in the Chair will rule.

Mr. John Hall: For at least two of the four-and-a-half hours that we have been debating points of order you have expressed the hope, Sir Robert, that an hon. Member would move an Amendment. Is it possible for you to call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to do that now?

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order—

The Chairman: That is the answer to the hon. Member's point of order: the


fact that hon. Members wish to raise points of order with me.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order. Have you noticed, Sir Robert, that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is either asleep or ill? Do you think he requires attention?

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend is merely bored to tears.

Dr. Gilbert: On a point of order. May I return to the point I was seeking to raise about four hours ago, Sir Robert?

The Chairman: No. If the hon. Gentleman returns to discuss the Amendments which the Committee has already agreed are out of order, he will be ruled out of order.

Dr. Gilbert: I hope I will not be accused of raising frivolous points of order. I was at pains earlier to exclude any Amendments which had been ruled out of order. I hope we have agreement on that point. I am not concerned with the Amendments which come before Amendment No. 96. Therefore, Sir Robert, I am following your instructions as to what will be in order in discussing other Amendments.
I shall spare the Committee reading through the numbers again, although it may be of some assistance to hon. Members. The numbers that I read out before are attached to this very important document. Hon. Members on the Government side seem to want to bring the listing of those Amendments to a stop because they do not want to hear about them. That surprises me, because this is the only information that we have in the document about the reasons why certain Amendments were ruled out of order. You have specified three different types, Sir Robert. I am referring to the Amendments before Amendment No. 96.

The Chairman: Perhaps I may make an apology to the hon. Member. It is my turn to say something. When I referred to "the Amendments before No. 96" what I should have said—and what I did not say, thereby possibly causing confusion in the hon. Member's mind and the minds of other hon. Members, for which I heartily apologise—was that all the Amendments to the Clause, other than

those I have selected, are out of order and are covered by the Motion that the House passed tonight. I hope that will assist the hon. Member. I apologise for confusing him and the Committee by saying "before No. 96" when I meant to refer to all the Amendments except those in the list of Amendments selected and the two new Amendments, one of which hon. Members understand to be a paving Amendment. All the rest are out of order.

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, and accept your eloquent and gracious apology. In parenthesis, I may say that I am most appreciative of your patience and courtesy to back benchers throughout this difficult sitting. I also mention, in parenthesis, to hon. Members opposite who are feeling very frustrated at our inability to get on with our business that we feel equally frustrated that we cannot discuss those Amendments that we want to, which have been ruled out of order. Frustration is by no means the monopoly of hon. Members opposite. Secondly, the difficulty is due to the way in which the Government have brought forward the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) mentioned the difficulties that we might have in putting down Amendments in future. I understand you have said, Sir Robert, that you might be agreeable to entering into private discussions about this in the next day or two. I want to refer to something that you said in the document that you addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing).

The Chairman: It is part of the business that has taken place. I cannot possibly enter into any discussions about what I might do. We shall have to see about it when the time arrives. I assure the hon. Member and other hon. Members that I shall do all I can to help him in any Amendment he may bring before me, but I cannot go into the question of my letter to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) now because that is part of the decision that the House has taken on the existing Amendments. It does not necessarily apply to anything that might happen either in the future on this Clause or on Clause 2 or later Clauses.

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to you, Sir Robert. I want to develop the point. I


accept that the decision of the House has been taken with respect to your previous decision, but you have accepted implicitly that the decision of the House did not inter alia instruct you that you might not change your mind.

The Chairman: There is no question of my changing my mind because at the moment I have no mind on those things. That is disposed of; I have made a decision and the House has substantiated it. I will deal in as friendly and helpful a way as I can with anything that comes along either on Clause 1 or on Clause 2 afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman really has a point of order I hope he will raise it now, because other hon. Members are anxious to speak.

Dr. Gilbert: I hope I am not trespassing on the time of my hon. Friends. I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, for changing your mind in that you have admitted Amendment No. 49 and this has raised the whole—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is referring to the new Amendment?

Dr. Gilbert: Yes.

The Chairman: I have not changed my mind. It is simply that one Amendment which was tabled was a paving Amendment and could not be moved until the other was brought forward. I would have selected it if the other had been on the Notice Paper yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It will be within your recollection, since you were in the Chair as Deputy Speaker at the time of the debate on the timetable Motion on the Industrial Relations Bill, that I said that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) had secured election to the House as an adherent of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The hon. Member wrote and asked me to retract that statement at a suitable opportunity. I regard this as being as suitable an opportunity as there could be to apologise to the hon. Member and to say that he has demonstrated that he is not an adherent of the right hon. Member.

The Chairman: That is very interesting but it is not a point of order for me. I suggest that the hon. Member could have found a more appropriate and beneficial place, from a health point of view, to have made that apology.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Many hon. Members will wish to pay tribute to your conduct during these proceedings but you will recall that when you were in the Chair on the last occasion you used certain strictures and said that hon. Members were bringing democracy into disrepute. I am paraphrasing you. In the light of the arguments being used outside about Parliament I would ask you, once HANSARD is published, to look at what you have said. I could forgive you in the circumstances for saying what you did, and I say that respectfully, but I believe that the statement you made did not reflect your attitude to hon. Members and did not reflect the truth.

The Chairman: Order. I do not see any reason to change what I said. I told the Committee that I considered it was not behaving in a parliamentary manner. That is not to say that hon. Members are not within their rights, and that is all I am concerned with. They must be the judges of whether they are bringing Parliament into disrepute by what they are doing. That is not for me. I can see nothing wrong with what I said and no reason to take back anything. That is the best explanation I can give.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. I have not raised a point of order before. With great respect to you, Sir Robert, the way in which you stated that case about the dignity of the House sounded like an insinuation, whereas my hon. Friends are pursuing a well-established parliamentary procedure. We are well within our rights, especially since we have the example of the Government trying to stifle legitimate criticism from the Opposition. We are entitled to pursue our points of order until we get satisfactory answers.

The Chairman: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman: I said that he was within his rights to do so. There is, however, a difference between being within one's rights and what one ought to do. It is the duty of the Chair to


give some guidance about what the Committee should do in the circumstances obtaining at the time. I have done that. I have not sought to labour it in any way; I think the Committee will recognise that. Hon. Members have raised their points of order. I have taken them as cheerfully as I could and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Hall: Could you refer the Committee, Sir Robert, to the Standing Order which requires you to call an hon. Member every time he rises to a point of order, on could you refer to any precedent for doing so when points of order continue for as long as they have done tonight?

The Chairman: What I have been doing is simply the practice of the House. I do not think there is anything unparliamentary in what I have done.

Mr. Hall: Further to that point of order. I understand that what you are doing, Sir Robert, is in accordance with the traditions of the House, and it is the normal tradition to call an hon. Member who rises to a point of order. But looking back as far as I have been able, I cannot find any precedent which allows hon. Members to raise points of order for nearly five hours. Surely the Chair has the right to end points of order at some time, because there is no Standing Order which requires the Chair to call hon. Members.

The Chairman: I do not think I have any right, unfortunately, to stop hon. Members raising points of order. The custom of the House of Commons is that points of order must be taken when they are raised. The Committee must judge whether it is doing well by the House of Commons. It is not for me to say. I have given an indication of what I think. If hon. Members do not choose to take my words to heart, responsibility in the eyes of the country will be theirs.

Mr. John Silkin: There are fairly well-established precedents as to what happens in these circumstances. You are aware of them, Sir Robert, and so am I. There is a former Leader of the House present and I myself am a former Deputy Leader of the House. The precedent of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, on which certain hon. Members on both sides played a

part, was very similar. I do not remember that the Chairman of Ways and Means then thought that Parliament was being brought into disrepute. The reason was that the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) never left the House for longer than three-quarters of an hour at a time. The obvious way in which this matter can be dealt with is for the Leader of the House to come here.
Having had some experience in this matter, I say sincerely and clearly that I am astonished that the Leader of the House should not have been here for the last five hours. After all, we have got ourselves into the most awful tangle. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may know a great deal about fish, but he does not know a great deal about procedure. The right person to be present on the Government Front Bench is the Leader of the House.

The Chairman: The right hon. Member will understand that this is not a question for me. I cannot compel the Leader of the House, any Minister or anyone to be present. All I have to do is to deal with the situation as I find it now, and that is bad enough.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I think that in every quarter of the Committee there is great admiration for the way in which you, Sir Robert, have tackled the situation during the last four hours or more. I have been very conscious of the fact that you have tried very courteously to assist hon. Members who have raised points of order. Your forbearance is a credit to the House.
My point of order may not surprise you because I cannot hide my accent. The fact that I am a Scot is made obvious when I speak. You will realise that those of us who are Scotsmen are very conscious that we belong not to a region but to a country. Clause 1 deals with the question of treaties, and here is something of great moment and importance for the people of Scotland. As you have tried to give advice and assistance to some of my hon. Friends who have raised questions about the Treaty of Union of 1707 and you have tried to be as helpful as possible, you will understand that there are not enough copies of that treaty for Scots Members to study when we become immersed in discussion of Clause 1.
If we cannot have the opportunity to study and scrutinise treaties which are related to Clause 1, I suggest, Sir Robert, that you could assist my hon. Friends and me by seeing that the Government act in such a way that advice on legal matters affecting Scotland can be given to us. As no doubt you are aware, we have a law of our own in Scotland and we cherish it very much. When matters of legality are raised it is not right or proper that we should have to inquire of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General on matters which pertain to the law of my native country.
I suggest a way out of this difficulty by which you can help us. The Law Officer for Scotland is the Lord Advocate. It is clear that if we go on to debate the Amendments which are suggested, Scottish Members will be at a great disadvantage because the Lord Advocate is not present. I hope you will be able to assist me and other Scottish Members, Sir Robert, by saying that the Lord Advocate will be on the Front Bench to give legal advice on Clause 1 and its effect on treaties pertaining to Scotland, particularly the Treaty of 1707.

The Chairman: I am grateful for the kind of remarks made by the hon. Gentleman during the early part of his point of order. I know that a thread of what he said runs through the House on these occasions, and this is what keeps me going. As for the hon. Gentleman's later remarks, he will know that I cannot compel the attendance of Law Officers, but what he said is now on the record. I have no doubt that it will be noted in the appropriate quarters and that whatever action is deemed to be necessary will be taken.

Mr. Foot: I made a suggestion earlier to try to meet the situation, which was not accepted by you, Sir Robert, and was not acted upon by the Minister in charge of the Bill. Therefore, I wish to make another constructive suggestion. It would be churlish of us all not to join in the tributes which have been paid to the courtesy, patience and good humour shown by the Chair during these proceedings, but it is obvious that a continuance of this kind of procedure is bound to cause difficulties for the Chair as well as for the rest of the Committee.
My proposal relates to a passage on page 520 of "Erskine May":

The proceedings of a committee on a bill may be brought abruptly to a close by an order, 'That the chairman do now leave the chair'…
This would involve no surrender on either side of the Committee.
"Erskine May" continues:
The chairman in such cases, being without instructions from the committee, makes no report to the House. A bill disposed of in this manner disappears from the order book".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can understand that that suggestion might not appear immediately appetising to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they should not jump to conclusions too quickly because the passages on to say
though it can be revived by an order of the House.
I dare say the Government might be able to win such an order, with a majority of eight, six or five.
If the Patronage Secretary were here, he might have noted the next passage in "Erskine May":
When a committee on a bill is revived, its proceedings are resumed at the point at which they were interrupted".
We all know where that is, and there will not be any doubt about that.
I do not make this point flippantly though it has its comic aspects. The Government would not lose anything by adopting such a proposition. All they would have to do is restore the Bill to the same situation. They would not have to have the Second Reading again, or the Money Resolution or a new Ways and Means Resolution. They would be restoring the Bill to exactly the position in which it now is by a single, simple vote of the House of Commons. If we followed that course, Sir Robert, we would relieve you of all your anxieties. Both sides of the Committee would be able to retire from the contest with honour. None of us would be victors; none of us would be vanquished. The whole debate would end as an uproarious success.
3.30 a.m.
Those of us who sometimes criticise the procedures of the House of Commons should recognise that in "Erskine May" one can always find a means of escape from the most awkward and difficult situations. I am grateful to those of my hon. Friends who have suggested


this one. Here we have a perfect instrument with which to deal with this precise situation.
I beg to move, That the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. My point concerns the stage that the Committee has now reached and the future conduct of its business. It affects especially the relationship between the Government and the Committee.
As you will recall, Sir Robert, in Standing Committees as well as in Committees of the whole House very often the stage is reached after several hours that the future of the work that the Committee is supposed to do depends upon the relationship between the Government, whichever Minister happens to represent the Government in the Committee, and the members of the Committee. Often, through the Chair, it is helpful to make suggestions whereby an expression of opinion can be elicited from the Government about how they see the work of the Committee progressing.
To some extent the scene was set earlier by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) who said, inadvertently, that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) had made no reference on Tuesday afternoon to the Motion that we debated earlier. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman cares to refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of Tuesday's proceedings, he will see that at 4.30 p.m. my hon. Friend said:
At the proper time we shall put down on the Order Paper of the House of Commons a substantive Motion criticising the selection that you have made, Sir Robert. I trust that the leaders of the Government and the Leader of the House will agree that the Motion is of such paramount importance that it should be discussed at the earliest possible date consistent with giving the proper warning and information to other hon. Members of the House of Commons. When we put down our substantive Motion this afternoon, I trust that the Government will make arrangements for the matter to be debated tomorrow afternoon in the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 273–4.]
There my hon. Friend was referring to the Motion criticising the selection of Amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Now we have moved to a further stage. A decision has been taken on that matter, and it would be unreasonable to try to elicit information from the Government about what their intentions might have been in circumstances which are now irrelevant and cannot be discussed. However, the decision late yesterday afternoon to table a Motion criticising the Government severely on the way in which the Bill has been drafted creates a new situation.
I do not wish to rehearse the distinction that right hon. and hon. Members have been trying to make between the responsibilities of the Government and those of the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is within the recollection of the Committee. Everybody knows the facts because only a few hours have passed since that debate took place, although we have now moved on to the following day.
This is a new decision of the official Opposition. I stress that this move does not emanate from a small group of hon. Members. Because of your decision earlier, Sir Robert, that you are prepared to accept certain Motions when they come from those in charge of the Bill and that, on certain occasions, you are prepared to accept those coming from the official Opposition, following custom and practice in saying that, I stress that this decision has been made not by an independent group of hon. Members but by the official Opposition. Therefore, it is now incumbent upon the Government in this new situation to give us their advice whether—

The Chairman: Order. I see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, and it is not at me. He is really trying to get an answer from the Government under the guise of a point of order for me.

Mr. Mendelson: No.

The Chairman: Then will the hon. Member tell me in one sentence what it is he wants me to answer?

Mr. Mendelson: Yes, Sir Robert. In a sentence, following custom and practice, as often happens in Standing Committees upstairs as well as in Committee of the whole House, I am asking, through you, the intentions of the Government, which is the time honoured phrase that is used on such occasions.

The Chairman: That was the sentence I wanted. I cannot do that. It is not my job and not my business to do that. May I have the next point of order?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). The criticism which the hon. Gentleman made of the point which I raised has some substance. If I have done an injustice to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I apologise. However, at col. 305 he said that if we could have the debate which we had earlier—or yesterday—that might assist on later progress of the Bill. Whether that was a pious hope or a possible bait I am not sure. Anyway, we do not seem to be making progress.
In ruling on a point put to you, Sir Robert, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), you said that you did not think it lay within your power to say that there had been enough points of order for you to ask the Committee to carry on with its business
I should like to put on record the fact that every Speaker whom I have known since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. and probably every Chairman of Ways and Means, has on a number of occasions in each Parliament at certain times said, "I am not prepared to accept any further points of order" and has then gone on with the business.
I know that all these matters have to be played by ear, according to the conditions prevailing at the time. I hope that no one under-estimates the enormous burdens which you, Sir Robert, have to bear throughout this night. All of us admire enormously the good humour with which you have borne those burdens.
It might be worthwhile recollecting how it came about that we ever had the Closure procedure and why it became necessary. I think it was in the debate on the South Africa Bill in 1899, or about that time, that the Irish Members indulged in a procedure which was, first, to move the Adjournment of the House and to have a Division on that, and then to come back and debate the proposition that the House should adjourn and should report Progress. That went on for about 36 hours.

Mr. English: It was in 1881.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I always stand to be corrected on dates.
The principle I want to put is that when this sort of thing is taking place, the House of Commons sometimes has to take certain steps which result in some restriction of the rights of hon. Members. It seems to me that we are getting into serious danger tonight of so over-using the procedure of points of order that if this continues it may become necessary for us to start to impose some restriction on points of order. [Interruption.] I personally would deplore such a need arising because I regard a point of order as a very considerable right for back benchers or for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. It would be a tragedy if, by over-using points of order, it became necessary in any way to take from hon. Members some of the rights they have hitherto enjoyed and which have seldom been abused.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The Government are cheats.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I gather that the hon. Member thinks this is a cheap observation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheat', not 'cheap'."] It is important that all of us should always be very jealous of the rights of hon. Members and that we should not so abuse procedure that it becomes necessary to limit the rights of hon. Members simply because abuses have occurred.
I would only suggest to you, Sir Robert, that there are many precedents for a limit to be put by the Chair on points of order when they are repetitive and contribute nothing new. I ask you to bear those precedents in mind.

The Chairman: I know what the hon. Member means, but this is a different situation. We have no Question before the Committee. It is a question of whether or not we should proceed. If we are debating an Amendment, the Chair has a right to say that enough is enough, but at this stage I do not have the right to help the hon. Member, I am afraid.

Mr. James Lamond: I have listened for almost five and a half hours with the greatest and closest attention to continuous points of order, and not least to the Rulings you gave, Sir Robert, following some of those points


of order. It seems to me that many were of considerable substance. The lack of documents—the Treaty of Union with Scotland, and others—seemed to me to be of the greatest relevance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), almost at the beginning, raised the question of whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress from this side if the Minister were not willing to move it. Your Ruling then and on several other occasions when my hon. Friend raised it was that you were not able to accept such a Motion because it was still quite early, as it was at that time, and there would be—I paraphrase your words, but you said something about such a likelihood—many long nights to come. One can accept that Ruling with respect in normal circumstances, if we were discussing Amendments, but it seemed to me that my hon. Friend was making a plea on that occasion on the ground that an adjournment of the Committee was required to enable hon. Members interested in these matters to acquaint themselves with the Amendments which have appeared as additions to those we had expected to discuss.
An adjournment would also have enabled my right hon. and hon. Friends to examine the position on the Treaty of Union and to inquire into the possibility of obtaining the documents which have been translated into English. The only factor to be considered before you gave your Ruling was the earliness of the hour. Will you, Sir Robert, accept from an hon. Member on the Opposition side of the Committee a Motion to report Progress, bearing in mind that almost four hours have gone by since you last ruled?

The Chairman: I still feel that I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress unless it is moved by those who are in charge of the Bill.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Stainton: For my humble elucidation, Sir Robert, will you please say by what criteria you admitted the final comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) as a point of order, or a series of points of order?

The Chairman: The criterion is simple. It is that the hon. Gentleman sought

on a point of order to ask whether I would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He chose to elaborate his request a little more than was absolutely necessary for reasons best known to him, but I will not pull him up about that now.

Mr. Pavitt: When your predecessor was in the Chair, Sir Robert, I raised two points of order, the first briefly and the second at greater length. Your predecessor gave advice on the second point of order but, as frequently happens, when two questions are put, the second was answered and the first one, I am sure inadvertently, was forgotten. May I therefore put my first point to you again?
My understanding has always been that when one speaks in Committee to an Amendment one's vote must follow one's voice. If an hon. Member seeks to move an Amendment in Committee but fails to do so, is that an indication of voice which the vote should follow, or, if the Amendment is not in order, although the hon. Member sought to move it, does that mean that his voice has not been given to the Amendment and that he is not forced to vote for it?

The Chairman: As far as I have the trend of what the hon. Gentleman has said—he will forgive me if I am not quite right about it, because something else was running through my mind at the time—I think he has correctly stated the position.

Mr. English: On a point of order. You will recollect, Sir Robert, that one of the themes in this series of points of order has been the question of documents. I will not rehearse the point I put to you earlier about it but you might wish to know what has happened since. There is a procedure. You yourself said, correctly as I understand it, that you had no power to direct Ministers to lay documents before the House of Commons. But it is the case that the House has the power.
At about one o'clock I gave both the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the opportunity to sign what is technically termed an Unopposed Return—for papers, of course. The return was for such decisions of the Council of Ministers as have not hitherto been made available to Members. "Unopposed" in that context means unopposed by the Crown. The signature


of any one Minister—including that of the Leader of the House, who gave us the assurance that we would have all these documents—to that piece of paper would have ended that series of points of order instantly because on the Order Paper for tomorrow there would have been a Motion for an unopposed return, which would have been carried out.
The Ministers who were offered that opportunity did not sign and it should be made clear that we on this side of the Committee are seriously wondering why Ministers wish to keep secret documents which they are asking Parliament to incorporate into the law of the land.

The Chairman: None of that is a point of order, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in what he wanted to do. There is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. O'Malley: May I raise a number of points of order, Sir Robert? First, I apologise for returning to the subject I raised earlier and I will do so only briefly. I am under the impression that my submission about the relevance of proceedings of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954 (Amendment) Act, 1964, still remains unanswered.
Secondly, I submit that when you are considering the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who has now left us, you should consider that it comes ill from hon. Members on the Government side to put that kind of proposition to you. They did not put it when the then Opposition ratted on the Labour Government on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
My third point—and I feel absolutely confident that you will feel able to comment on the proposition I am putting—is that some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) attempted to move a Motion that the Chairman should leave the Chair. You ruled that you could not then accept such a Motion. Since then, I have taken the advice of the learned Clerk, for which I am grateful.
I gather that your Ruling, Sir Robert, is based and has to be based on Standing Order No. 28, subsection (1), which states:
If Mr. Speaker, or the chairman, shall be of opinion that a dilatory motion is an abuse

of the rules of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or"—
this is the relevant passage—
he may decline to propose the question thereupon to the House or the committee.
That was what you did, Sir Robert; you declined to propose the Question.
Subsection (2) of the Standing Order states:
For the purposes of this order the ex pression 'dilatory motion' shall include a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the chair.
May I, therefore, ask you two questions on this point, Sir Robert? First, on what grounds did you decide that the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale was an abuse of the rules of the House? It seems, at least to this side of the Committee, that my hon. Friend moved that Motion in perfectly reasonable terms and was attempting, for the second time tonight, to get the Committee out of the enormous difficulty in which it found itself.

Mr. Heffer: What about the damned Bill? That is an abuse.

Mr. O'Malley: Second, on the question of Standing Order No. 28, Sir Robert, if it were the case that an hon. Member were now to move for the Chairman to leave the Chair, on the ground that the Chairman, perhaps, in the view of an hon. Member, was unreasonably or as a matter of wrong judgment refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress, after the proceedings have been continuing, after the 10 p.m. vote, since 10.26 p.m., would you advise me whether you would regard that as an abuse of the rules of the House, if that were so, and if a Motion were moved on those grounds—that is, that your judgment, Sir Robert, was at fault in refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress during the night, since we have now reached nearly 4 a.m.?
My third point of order, briefly, is this. About half an hour ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who has considerable experience in these matters, suggested that as we were in such difficulties the Leader of the House should be present. The Leader of the House has hidden himself away and is presumably skulking in his room. He has not been here


for the last five hours. We would like to know where he is.
You said, Sir Robert, that this was not a matter for you. However, may I suggest that as the servant of the Committee what could be a matter for you is that a message could go from the Chair—this is the only way I know of contacting the Leader of the House—through the Whip, which I suppose means the Treasury Bench at all times, that the Committee requires the presence of the Leader of the House immediately to attempt to ascertain what he feels about the present situation and how we are to get out of it?
On the question of the attendance of the Leader of the House—this is directly a question for you, Sir Robert—we are now faced with two further problems as a result of the enormous tangle in which the Government find themselves with their programme. Committees are sitting this day, not only at 10.30 a.m. but also this afternoon for open-ended sittings. In view of this outrageous situation, and as this is the second night running that the ladies in the Tea Room have been kept up until 5 a.m., are we not entitled to ask that a Motion to report Progress be accepted and that the Leader of the House should come to the Committee?

The Chairman: The last points that the hon. Gentleman raises are not matters for me. They are for the Government, to do what they think right. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, about the Motion that the Chairman should leave the Chair, I would consider such a Motion an abuse of the rules of the House in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the reason being that we could have made, had it been the wish of the Committee, a great deal more progress on the Bill than we have done.
4.0 a.m.
The Committee in its wisdom has sought to obstruct that progress and, therefore. I consider it would be an abuse of the rules of the House for me to leave the Chair in that situation. It would mean that the Bill would be dropped from the Order Paper. It is not something I can do.
The work with which I was expressly charged by the House when it elected me to this position is to hold the scales of justice in the same way as Mr. Speaker and to facilitate the business of the House so that it may come to a decision. That is exactly what I have been trying to do and that is my basic reason for not accepting the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I rise for the first time to a point of order and I shall be brief. You have ruled, Sir Robert, that those Amendments which are out of order cannot be discussed or referred to now on points of order. We accept that Ruling, although we disagree with the view that the Amendments are out of order. I understand that about five or six Amendments were not rules out of order but in your discretion, I believe, you decided not to select them.
Can you clarify the position, Sir Robert? Why were those Amendments in order, as you imply and suggest in your letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)? Was it because they did not subject to parliamentary approval the provisions of the treaties already accepted? In this case can you assist us with later Amendments and tell the Committee when these treaties were accepted?

The Chairman: I am glad to say my reply on this is not a difficult one. I am expressly instructed by the Standing Orders to give no reasons for the selection or non-selection of Amendments. It is the accustomed practice of the House and all Standing Committees that the Chairman does not say why he does not select Amendments. He may give reasons why he deems Amendments not to be in order, which I have already done.

Mr. Davies: Can I then phrase my question differently? Can you tell the Committee, Sir Robert, why those Amendments were in order? Is it that they do not subject to parliamentary approval the provisions of the treaties, as already accepted, as you say in your letter?

The Chairman: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I cannot discuss those Amendments in any way.

Mr. Kinnock: I wish to raise an important point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, which


concerns the sentences which were read to us by the Chairman at an earlier stage in the proceedings from page 506 of "Erskine May". Having been extremely concerned over the possibility of hon. Members moving Amendments tabled not by them but by other hon. Members, and having been referred to page 506 of "Erskine May", I went to the source of that Ruling, which was given in July, 1911, when the then Mr. Speaker said:
Nothing will prevent an hon. Member's name and notice appearing in the blue papers in the ordinary way the day after he has handed his notice in. For the convenience of Members who have to handle all this paper, I think if six names appear that ought to be sufficient bearing in mind that in Committee, if none of those six hon. Members are present, it is open to any hon. Member to get up without notice and move the Amendment on the paper".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1911; Vol. XXVII, c. 1148.]
In view of the novel situation that is about to arise because of the nature of the Bill, it is time to reassess the value of that Ruling, because there is a danger that to expedite, for superficial reasons, the business of the Committee hon. Members may take advantage of the absence of other hon. Members and get Amendments dealt with without sufficient discussion.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), whose reputation as a democrat is equal to that of any hon. Member, earlier sought to move an Amendment to which his name did not appear, without success only because he was speaking to a point of order. Will you look into this matter, Mr. Mallalieu?

Mr. Jay: On a point of order. May I address you, Mr. Mallalieu, on three topics? First, am I right in thinking that it is out of order—that it has always been outwith the rules of the House of Commons—to closure points of order?
Second, your predecessor in the Chair had occasion to remark some time ago that some hon. Members were in danger of abusing the procedures of the Committee in these proceedings. I say "proceedings" because I cannot call this a debate. Did that remark apply equally to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, since we have had a large number of points of order raised from both sides? If it applied to only one side, may we be told which?
Third, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that my hon. Friend

the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has in the last few hours made constructive suggestions on two occasions designed to bring order and reason into our deliberations, but on neither occasion has there been a response from the Government. A remarkable feature of these proceedings, during which the Solicitor-General has been speechless, has been—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman nearing his point of order?

Mr. Jay: I have reached it. Would it be possible for you to indicate to the Solicitor-General that a response from the Government is opportune, in view of the constructive suggestions that have come from this side of the Committee?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for me. It is not for me to persuade hon. Members to speak, although it sometimes falls to the Chair to try to dissuade them from speaking. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Closure being put while points of order are being taken is that the Closure can be put only on a Question, and there is no Question before the Committee.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Attempts have been made to discover the Government's intentions in this matter, Mr. Mallalieu, and this can be done only on the basis of a Motion to report Progress. We had what I can only describe as a strange Ruling about this, or perhaps I should say anticipating this, from the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it seems obvious that the initiative in this context will not come from the Government.
There is, however, another way out, and it lies in your hands, Mr. Mallalieu. The Leader of the House of Commons is responsible to hon. Members as well as to the Government. In view of the continued and lengthy absence of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask you to suspend the sitting for half an hour while a messenger is sent to fetch him?

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is certainly not out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to ask me such a question, but I am afraid that I could not accede to it.

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order. The guardian of our proper conduct and the guardian of our arrangements is the Leader of the House, but for the last six hours he has not been present. If you are unable or unwilling to suspend the sitting, Mr. Mallalieu, could not a message be sent to the right hon. Gentleman?
There is a simple process that we might follow. The Solicitor-General does not know anything about parliamentary procedure—there is no reason why he should—any more than does the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Secretary of State for Wales knows something about the Conservative Party but not much about parliamentary procedure.
The one man who can bring the Leader of the House to us is the Whip. By your Chair, Mr. Mallalieu, there is a little bell. If the Whip presses it another Whip comes in from outside, and the Whip who has pressed the bell can tell the other Whip that the Leader of the House is required. I am sure that the Leader of the House would have come if somebody had told him that we have been asking for him for six hours.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The point I wish to raise is designed to see whether it would not be possible, through you, Mr. Mallalieu, and with your help—as is not infrequently done in Committee upstairs—to find some way of seeing whether it is not reasonable for us to get a consensus between the Executive, the Government and the rest of the Committee, perhaps through the person of the Leader of the House.
There are wild rumours circulating in the Lobby that the Leader of the House has resigned his position. I do not know whether there is any truth in them. But we have with us a member of the Government. People have been saying that the Leader of the House's absence for the last six hours is wholly unprecedented and cannot be explained reasonably, unless a member of the Treasury Bench can offer an explanation. It is not necessarily reasonable to insist that the right hon. Gentleman be fetched into the House—although that would be much the best thing—but we should at least

call upon a member of the Government to give an explanation.
My point is that whether it be done through the person of the Leader of the House or through the person of the Solicitor-General, referring back to the statement made by the Chairman of Ways and Means at the beginning of these discussions the day before yesterday, when my hon. Friend began his first submission the Chairman of Ways and Means said:
In a word, the Bill provides the legal nuts and bolts which are necessary if the United Kingdom is to be a member of the Communities. It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties which are basic to the Communities. If it were such a Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] If hon. Members would be so kind as to wait for a moment. If it were such a Bill, then, of course, every article of those treaties would be open to discussion and the majority of Amendments to Clause 1 would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.]
It is not unprecedented that difficulties of this kind should arise in Committee. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee who have been Members of the House for a number of years will know that difficulties of one kind or another in a Standing Committee or a Committee of the whole House are not unprecedented.
Difficulties are sometimes overcome in the House or its Committees by a deliberate search for a consensus. The word "obstructing" has been used with reference to the debate, and some hon. Members have legitimately asked whether there could not be a ruling from the Chairman. The rights of the House have to be defended by hon. Members and not just the Chair. Anyone who knows a little of the history of this House knows that Mr. Charles Bradlaugh was not always at one with the Chair in defending the rights of the Members of the House. It cannot always be left to the Chair. Could you help in this situation, Mr. Mallalieu? You cannot compel the Government but you could, on the basis of the quotation I have read, help us to move towards a situation whereby the Government produce a Bill upon which there could be a consensus. I ask you to help us.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. There have been occasions


when this House or the House in Committee has been faced with an impasse. Not long ago there was a demonstration outside the House when a grave situation arose, and, thanks to a magnificent contribution by the Leader of the House, the situation was resolved. The right hon. Gentleman's behaviour was exemplary. We have a difficult situation now, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has attempted to resolve it. There never has been an issue as grave as this before us. Many of us believe that the Bill is almost illegal in the way it is drafted. [Interruption.] I will wait until the Patronage Secretary has finished talking to the Chair. I will begin again. I was saying that the Leader of the House was magnificent when there was a difficult situation outside the House. He made a remarkable contribution. We should consider the generous proposition of my hon. Friend. Since the Patronage Secretary is distracting your attention again, Mr. Mallalieu, I shall start again—

The Second Deputy Chairman: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat himself. I understand his point: it has been made many times before, and has been dealt with.

Mr. Molloy: It would be rude of me to break off in the middle of a speech to chat to one of my hon. Friends; you would call me to order, Mr. Mallalieu. So I hope that you will endeavour to keep the Patronage Secretary in order.
I am opposed to everything in the Bill, and other hon. Members who might be sympathetic are gravely apprehensive about certain aspects of it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said, the Leader of the House is the Leader of the whole House. Instead of whispering rudely while I am talking, perhaps the Patronage Secretary would consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and to ask the Ministers concerned to show some respect for the House and for the people who sent us here, who are also gravely concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Point of order."] I am not a point of order, you nit.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not call the Chair a nit.

Mr. Molloy: The Secretary of State for Employment once accused us of nitpicking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] I am pleased to see that the Leader of the House is back. I hope he will convince the Ministers that my hon. Friend's proposal is pertinent. The Government should agree to report Progress so that the usual channels can get together and we can make a fresh start on one of the greatest issues that the country has ever faced.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Now that the Leader of the House is present, I wonder if it would be helpful to the Committee of he made a statement as to how he thinks proceedings might continue. I hope that the suggestion I am making on a point of order might be welcome to him and that he will make a statement.

Hon. Members: Move your Amendment.

Mr. Pavitt: I apologise to you, Mr. Mallalieu, and to the Committee for the fact that on a previous point of order I inadvertently referred to Article 58 and not to Article 57 of the Treaty of Rome. That was because I did not then have my copy of the treaty in my hand.
I wish to put a further point of order. I am referring to the question raised previously about documents being before the Committee. I seek your Ruling on a different proposition. I refer to the discrepancy between the two copies of the treaty which are affected by Clause 1 and the Amendments we shall discuss when we start the Committee stage. Because I was very much involved in this matter in 1961, I retained my 1961 copy of the treaty. To refresh my memory, I have now obtained from the Library the 1967 copy. If hon. Members avail themselves of that they will see the affect of the Amendments we shall be discussing when the Chair calls them.
At the beginning of the copy which is available to hon. Members we read:
N.B. This revised translation has been prepared by the Foreign Office for the convenience of Parliament and the public. It must not be treated as an official or authentic text.
The problem which the Committee is facing is that the Chair will give deep consideration to debates on this subject and to the Amendments. If hon. Members have different copies of the treaty,


the problem will be to know exactly to what they are referring. There is great discrepancy in regard to Article 48, about which hon. Members on this side of the Committee are profoundly concerned because it deals with the movement of workers and has an effect on the trade union movement. The two texts give different interpretations of what could happen if the Bill eventually passes and if Amendments are or are not accepted. The relationship of the Government with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. would be affected.
Although we cannot ask for the documents to be laid because of the Chairman's Ruling, will the Chair rule as to which text should be considered under Clause 1 and the Amendments relating to that Clause? Then hon. Members would know on precisely which text arguments can be adduced. I have the 1967 text and also what I suppose is the 1960 text. Could we have either a Ruling from the Chair or an indication from the Government as to what exactly Clause 1 is seeking to give accession to, so that we shall know that we are discussing the same documents and shall not be in a state of confusion.
I notice that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to match the colour of his tie, is carrying a blue edition of the treaty, whereas the virginal purity on this side of the House leads us to have a white version of the treaty. Therefore, since there appear to be differences, will the Chair give a definite ruling on which text we should use? Alternatively, I can ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) to give us a translation of the text which he has, which I understand is an authentic text, not in English, but in French, German, Italian and Dutch. Those are the official texts. I hope we shall receive some assistance on this matter.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am anxious to help hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) in particular. However, it is not for the Chair to rule on the nature of the text or to say which text is the one to use.

Mr. Mellish: May I now make reference again to the plea of my hon. Friend

the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that we should hear the Government's view as to how we should end this impasse.

Mr. Rost: Move the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: May I be allowed to put my point to the Leader of the House, who I am sure wishes to be helpful? My hon. Friend asked the Government to move that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. This would mean that we would move the first Amendment fairly quickly. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to disagree in regard to the formalities of moving the Amendment. However, I am sure that whoever on the Opposition side moved the Amendment would not do so at great length and that that hon. Member, if he had the opportunity to do so, could be called again.
I am as anxious as is the Leader of the House about the conduct of the House and about the way in which we get out of the difficulties in which we sometimes find ourselves. I regard this as one of the most contentious Bills during my 25 years' experience in this honourable House. Could I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that after the Amendment is moved and outlined, the right hon. Gentleman would move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again. I think that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have also made this suggestion which I am putting to the Leader of the House.
So I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Government see the position, not only now but in the immediate hours ahead? The right hon. Gentleman may take it from me, as one who has had experience of the ability of my hon. Friends in matters of this kind, that he would be well advised not to go on but, instead, to help the Committee now.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, I have listened carefully to what has been said in these last few minutes. I did not respond earlier because I wished to hear a little more. I realise the difficulty in which the Committee is placed, but I find it hard to understand why it is not possible, on the basis of what the Opposition Chief Whip has said, for the Amendment to be moved and for the Committee to make


progress. It is impossible to report Progress until some progress has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Amendment should be moved. Very well. Let it be moved. Let the debate start. Let us make some progress. Then certainly I shall be prepared to consider the position. I think that that is a reasonable proposition.
I am not in the Chair, and I do not know whether the Chair would accept a Motion to report Progress. But surely the sensible course is for the Amendment to be moved. What is the purpose of going on as the Committee is at present? It makes no sense. Why not move the Amendment, start the debate in an orderly and proper way, let us make some progress, and see how we get on?

Mr. Mellish: The Chairman of Ways and Means indicated that he would be prepared to consider such a Motion in certain circumstances. There is no doubt about the attitude of the Chair. This debate has been going on since 10.30—

Mr. Rost: It has not started.

Mr. Mellish: The discussion has been going on since 10.30—

Mr. Rost: The Opposition's filibuster has been going on.

Mr. Mellish: I could answer the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), but I shall treat his remark with the contempt that it deserves.
The Leader of the House says that he wants some progress. I do not know whether he takes the view that progress will have been made only after four or five speeches on the Amendment. I suggested that the Amendment should be moved. In that way, the Committee stage would have been launched. We should have started, and I understand that that was the desire of many hon. Members. I think it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that once the Committee stage had been launched and the appropriate Amendment had been moved he would consider moving a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Whitelaw: Let us move the Amendment and see how we get on. I think that that is a sensible proposition.

If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Amendment be moved, I cannot see why we should not move it and see how we get on. That is the normal procedure, and I cannot see why it cannot be followed in this case.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House says that this is the normal way, but he is not quite correct. The normal way for these matters to be dealt with is for a Motion to be moved to report progress and then, on the basis of that Motion, for the Committee to discuss how it proposes to proceed.
What is more, there is no rule of this House which says that if a Committee has not made progress such a Motion is not possible. There have been many occasions when no progress has been made on a Bill in the sense that we have not proceeded with the Amendments and when such a Motion moved by a Minister has been accepted by the Chair. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman is not correct when he says that he does not know whether the Chair would accept such a Motion. He is well aware that, in the circumstances and after these discussions, of course the Chair would accept such a Motion.
All that the right hon. Gentleman has to agree to is that we move the Amendment formally, which is what I proposed about two hours ago. If he says that he will not agree to that, but that he requires us to move the first group of Amendments and to embark on the discussion and he will then choose when to move the Motion, that is not satisfactory.
4.45 a.m.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why it is not satisfactory from our point of view. It is for the reason which I gave earlier. I apologise to those hon. Members who were present before, because I must repeat it. The reason, which is perfectly serious, is concerned with the affairs of the House, and particularly the Committee stage of the Bill. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), who was to move this group of Amendments, had now to rise and embark upon a general discussion of the whole range of those Amendments he would have to do that without having had the opportunity to consider—

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had plenty of time to think about them.

Mr. Foot: —the new Amendment which the Chairman of Ways and Means announced at the beginning of our proceedings he was proposing to accept.
We believe that we have the right, particularly when the whole controversy has been how these Amendments are selected and what is the relationship between them, to consider how this affects the general Amendments to the Bill. That is one reason why we do not wish to proceed to a general discussion. We want an opportunity to examine the effect of the Ruling, which was given only at the beginning of this proceeding, because it is a complicated matter.
I will guarantee that very few hon. Members know what is contained in Amendment No. 49 and how it affects the Bill. If the Leader of the House will get up and tell me exactly what Amendment No. 49 does and what its effect will be, I should be grateful. I should be glad of the enlightenment. I would readily give way if he were willing to do that, but I do not think that he will wish to do so.
There is also the question, raised some hours ago now from the other side of the Committee, not the Opposition, about the relationship of some of the other Amendments to the way we would be discussing them. These are reasons why we would not wish to proceed with the general discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill.
The offer which the Leader of the House has made does not meet the situation. We have made an offer which would deal with the situation and would not inflict any great injury upon the Government. They would not have to go away as if they had suffered a great defeat. It would not mean anything like that. We have made an offer which we hope will get the Government, ourselves, and the Committee out of this difficulty. As I said before—I do not think that the Leader of the House was present—there would be neither victors nor vanquished. It would mean that when we proceed next week, maybe, to the Committee stage of the Bill, we would start with a clean slate, having had the opportunity to look at all these Amendments

and consider the relationship between the Amendments which were on the Notice Paper before and those which have now suddenly been accepted by the Chair.
I should have thought that the Committee would consider this quite a serious point. Having debated the question of the rejection of Amendments by the Chair for so long, when we came to the proceedings at 10 o'clock—I do not know whether the Leader of the House was here then—we were suddenly faced with a new situation because the Chairman of Ways and Means—I am not blaming him—had accepted a new group of Amendments. That group of Amendments was not grouped in the way they had been put down. It was very complicated.
Many other points of order have been raised and when Sir Robert was in the Chair he said that almost all the points he had heard were serious points of order. As the Leader of the House has not heard what happended over the past three or four hours, I might ask him to consider whether, if he had heard, he would have been in a more willing mood to hear representations made to him. So I plead with him to accept the perfectly reasonable proposal we have made to deal with the situation.
We are not prepared to accept the arrangement that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should embark on the whole discussion in general without any guarantee as to when the Motion is to be moved.

Mr. Whitelaw: I will, of course, respond to the hon. Member. I think I have made a perfectly reasonable proposal. He thinks he has made a perfectly reasonable proposal. I am perfectly prepared to discuss this with him, or through the usual channels. It is a sensible way of doing it. I feel my proposal is reasonable, and it is clear that my hon. Friends do. He thinks his is reasonable. Let us discuss them.

Mr. Emery: A number of hon. Members who have been here during the whole debate and since some time before 10 a.m. are wishing to make progress. Before any discussion takes place through the usual channels, some of them feel that reasonable progress should be made before we adjourn.
It is important that that view should be expressed to the Leader of the House,


and not only the views of hon. Members opposite, who for six and a half hours have been raising points of order many times over and over again in a way to do nothing but delay the starting of this Bill. That needs to be said so that people outside the House should realise it.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I rise to a point of order. I want to make it clear to the House that what has been happening during the past 12 hours of simulated trench warfare is what happened when every country now in the European Economic Community adopted the Bills which carried them into the Community.
We are compelled by technical difficulties to conduct this type of debate in a form of points of order. It is not our fault, but lies in the nature of the Bill which has been presented to us.
I submit to you, Mr. Mallalieu, a proposition that an illegitimate Bill must be resisted by such methods as are available for those who want to resist it. I want to ask for certain guidance: whether the accumulated experience of the Community itself may from time flow in into our discussions, and inform them. As I hinted earlier, on a representation made on a different point of order, when the German Federal Republic decided to join the E.E.C., it did so by an instrument which was subject to amendment and was amended profoundly and in such a way that by a peculiar paradox the East German State—the German Democratic Republic—became, in effect, an associate member of the European Economic Community. That is clearly stated in an annex to the Treaty of Rome. When we are discussing that treaty—and we are compelled to do so in the form of points of order because of the way in which the Bill has been presented—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has not yet revealed to me his point of order.

Mr. Fletcher: I will now reveal it. The word "unprecedented" has been used more than 35 times in the last 12 hours, but since what we are doing and the Bill we are discussing are both unprecedented, I suggest that a large part of "Erskine May" is almost as relevant as the Second Book of Deuteronomy. Therefore, since we must look for precedents in presenting our arguments, is it in order to cite precedents from the accumulated

experience of the Six countries which are already members of the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member must not expect me to give a blanket ruling on whether certain things will be in order. It all depends upon whether what is said by hon. Members is relevant, and that I can only tell when it has been said.

Mr. O'Malley: The points of order which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in the last half-hour have revealed significant and deep differences of opinion as to how the remaining hours of this morning should be spent.
In an attempt to reach agreement, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has put two propositions, both of which have been turned down. The Leader of the House made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that, because of those differences of opinion, his proposition, vague as it was, and the proposition of my hon. Friend could best be discussed through the usual channels. If that discussion is to take place, what is to be the conduct of the Committee during those private discussions? I hope that those discussions can take place immediately, although the Leader of the House, whom we are glad to see, is still with us.
Several ways are open to us. Many hon. Members have points of order which they can raise while the private discussions are going on, but the Chair has hinted several times that it does not find this situation entirely satisfactory. As we have been raising points of order since twenty-six minutes past ten, the time is long overdue for a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I do not know for how much longer the Chair can resist such a Motion. That would be one way for the Committee to discuss the differences which exist, since it cannot properly be done on points of order.
5.0 a.m.
If you would not accept such a Motion, Mr. Mallalieu, I refer to the second proposition put by my hon. Friend when he asked the Chairman of Ways and Means whether he would accept a Motion that he should leave the Chair. Quite


properly within the rules of order, if his interpretation is correct, the Chairman decided that under Standing Order No. 28 he could not and would not accept that Motion either. We are now in a different situation.
It is unreasonable to sit from twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock until five in the morning without the Committee having an opportunity to discuss the general situation under the heading of a Motion to report Progress, and, in a sense of dissatisfaction with the Chair for refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress in these circumstances, it seems reasonable to ask you whether you would now accept a Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The situation is intolerable, and in the circumstances I submit that the Chair must accept one of the two options open to it—either a Motion to report Progress or a Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair on the ground that the judgment of the Chair in refusing a Motion to report Progress is entirely unreasonable in the circumstances.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has expressed the view that it is unreasonable that the Committee should spend so much time as it has. That may or may not be so. It is hardly for me, so new to the position, to express a judgment to the Committee on that matter. But there are other ways to alter the situation than the Motions to which he has referred. He could discuss the Amendments, for instance.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Can we find out why the heating has been turned off in the building? Apart from hon. Members, a number of staff are still on the premises. I think it is within the power of the Chair to make an investigation. The conditions for the staff, quite apart from hon. Members, are becoming less than they could demand in offices and shops as far as heating is concerned. Could you look into the matter with a view to looking after, if not hon. Members, then the officers and staff who have to put up with these conditions?

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I will make inquiries. I would be glad if the Serjeant at Arms would make inquiries into whether the heating has been turned off and, if so, why.

Mr. W. T. Williams: On a point of order. As you may know, Sir Robert, I have sat through the whole of the debate. I hoped to be called but was not called. I have sat through the whole of the discussion relating to points of order since 10.30 p.m. I have had an increasing sense of alarm about the way in which the whole of the discussion has gone, and that has cumulated in the speech made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who, in his point of order, seemed to epitomise the gulf that has grown between both sides of the House. In the interjections that have been made from time to time, either in formal speeches such as his or, indeed, in shouts from the yah-hoo brigade that surrounds him, it appears that the Government Benches have reached the point at which, whatever the merits of the case may be, they are concerned only to ensure that the prestige of the Government is maintained by an insistence that the debate shall be begun on the matters affecting the Committee irrespective of the quality of that debate.
I should like to raise three matters, Sir Robert, in the points of order upon which I have risen after remaining silent for so long. The first arises in this way. You will recall, Sir Robert, that when you were earlier making your Ruling regarding matters that had been discussed in yesterday's debate, you refused at any time to consider any of the matters that arose, as you put it, from a decision that you had taken, a decision that you say in your Ruling—I am not criticising your Ruling—had been supported by the vote of the House, and that therefore, your judgment having been vindicated, these matters were no longer matters that were open to further debate.
I have no intention of going behind that curtain that has been drawn by your Ruling and your view of what it was that the vote at 10 p.m. provided. May I, however, say this, referring only to that Ruling in the light of its effect upon the future conduct of the debates in Committee on this very important constitutional Bill? By the view that you, Sir Robert, have taken of the vote taken at 10 o'clock, it appears, at least to me, that there is a possibility that any Ruling made in the future regarding Amendments that are put down by hon. Members will have in context the fact that


the decision that you arrived at in relation to these Amendments that you have now declared to be out of order will be the context within which—at least so I fear, and possibly my hon. Friends share that fear—you will consider all future Amendments relating to the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too apprehensive about all this. I assure him and the Committee that as these Amendments come in I shall look at them quite objectively and not in relation to what I have done necessarily as part of a general policy. I shall look at each Amendment and see whether it is in order, and rule accordingly. So far, I have not considered Amendments to Clause 2. There is no point in my doing so. It will be a long time before we reach the Clause.
There may be more Amendments to Clause 1 before we are finished with it which may be in order, for all I know. I ask the hon. and learned Member not to try to prejudge the issue or to put me in the position where I must disallow Amendments in the future based on what I have done in the past. That would be wrong. We shall have to see how we go.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful for that advice, Sir Robert. But in putting down Amendments whether to Clause 1, if that is still possible, or to other Clauses, the House has already received a formal statement, an expression of reasons and principles by which you have declared yourself guided in deciding that certain Amendments could or could not be in or out of order. The position, therefore, in considering whether a particular Amendment would be in order or not is that those who contemplate putting down new Amendments will have to bear in mind the formal declaration of the grounds upon which earlier Amendments have been declared to be outwith the principles of the Bill as already expressed by the Chair.
Not only has a threat of circumscription been laid on Amendments that may possibly be put down. It is also bound to have a considerable effect upon the extent to which hon. Members on this side would be able to make a serious contribution on Amendments which have been admitted or even reconstructed into new groups, in-

cluding two new Amendments, of the quality demanded by the importance and significance of the Bill.
I hope hon. Members on the Government side will acquit us of wishing to do no more than keep the House going over a long period in order to prevent the Government conducting its business. I would much rather be in bed than lend myself to that kind of charade. Hon. Members on both sides should acquit each other of being capable of behaving totally irresponsibly in their sense of duty as Members of Parliament. We do not want to continue the debate in these circumstances because we believe that it is below the level of the events we are shaping. Do hon. Members on the Government side believe that justifies them in saying, irrespective of the quality of the debate, irrespective of the exercise of thought that has gone into the Amendments and the need to give Amendments the content and quality that the Bill deserves, that it is of such little consequence that it does not matter whether people can gather their thoughts and make a serious contribution. Do they regard that as of no consequence?

5.15 a.m.

The Chairman: I have the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I am much obliged to him for helping me. But the whole Committee knows exactly why we have not made progress. It is because one part of the Committee does not want US to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let us be under no illusions. That is the reason, and, therefore, it would be wrong of me to accept a Motion that would have the effect of terminating business, because we could have made quite a lot of progress had the Committee wished. Therefore, I should not be acting strictly in accord with my position as an impartial Chairman if I accepted such a closure at this stage, having regard to the way in which our proceedings have gone. So now I call Mr. Clinton Davis.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have two new points of order—

The Chairman: May I say first that I have received a note from the Serjeant at Arms saying:
Please inform the Chair that the control room informs me that the temperature in the Chamber is 68°F and that the heating is functioning normally throughout the building.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not know who is is responsible for that report. I shall be quite willing to place myself at the disposal of the Serjeant at Arms—

The Chairman: That is a matter that need not be brought to my attention. The hon. Gentleman may do exactly as he chooses in that way. Mr. Clinton Davis —

Mr. Loughlin: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I will not hear any more on that matter.

Mr. Loughlin: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that is not properly a point of order. As far as I am concerned, the matter has been disposed of, and I have called Mr. Clinton Davis.

Mr. Loughlin: Well, name me then if you feel like that. You accepted the responsibility—

The Chairman: Order—

Dame Irene Ward: May I make an observation—

The Chairman: Order. We have been extremely good-tempered throughout the evening. I should hate anything to happen that might disturb that peaceful tranquillity. I do not wish to be overbearing with the hon. Gentleman, but a report has been brought to me by the responsible Officer of the House, which I am bound to accept as conclusive. I am not prepared to accept a divergent discussion. We are very busy with important points of order and trying to hurry along so that we can get to discussion of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to check what has been said by the Serjeant at Arms, I should be glad if he would make his own arrangements and let me call Mr. Clinton Davis, which I have done.

Mr. Loughlin: With the greatest respect, Sir Robert, it has always been the responsibility of the Chair not necessarily simply to accept but to investigate further, and I challenge the report that has been submitted to you.

The Chairman: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the neces-

sary steps to implement his challenge. Mr. Clinton Davis—

Dame Irene Ward: Sir Robert, may I ask you—

The Chairman: If the hon. Lady wishes to raise a point of order, I will call her next as soon as I have heard Mr. Clinton Davis.

Dame Irene Ward: This is not a point of order. I do not see why—

The Chairman: The hon. Lady is out of order. We are on points of order. I have already called Mr. Clinton Davis, and I will call the hon. Lady immediately I have finished hearing Mr. Davis.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have two points of order that have not been touched on. First, I seek your guidance, Sir Robert, as to the order of debate when the debate is reached. "Erskine May" says at page 507:
For the sake of convenience, and with the consent of the committee, the chairman frequently permits debate to range over several amendments which raise different aspects of the proposal in the actual amendment under consideration. This latitude in debate is usually allowed on the understanding that, if the later amendments are called, they may be divided on if desired, but not discussed.
The Amendments you have selected may be closely related. It may be necessary in debating the first group of Amendments—96 and those to be taken with it—to touch upon Amendments 97, 3, 29, 31, 23 and 40. It is clear that they touch upon each other in many material respects.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he is trying to get me to do something I cannot do. I cannot discuss the selection of Amendments for the future. I shall, of course, be very pleased to discuss those with the hon. Gentleman at the appropriate time.

Mr. Davies: With respect, Sir Robert, that is not the point at all. You have given a provisional selection of Amendments, and it is these to which I am referring. If, for example, in the debate on the first group one touches upon the other Amendments, will that in any way inhibit debate upon those matters if they are subsequently raised as substantive Amendments? This is a difficult matter.


These are very closely related, yet it would be profoundly unsatisfactory if I, for example, sought to raise some of these subsequent provisionally selected Amendments while debating Amendment No. 96 and then it were held by the Chair later that some other hon. Members were in any way to be inhibited from debating these matters and voting upon them subsequently.

The Chairman: I have the hon. Gentleman's point quite clearly. Passing references to Amendments which are not out of order will not be ruled out of order by the Chair, but it would be wrong to develop arguments, for example, on Amendment No. 97 when we were discussing the group of Amendments preceding it or any of the other Amendments. I think that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Davis: Not wholly, Sir Robert, because it could well be more than a passing reference. For example, taking Amendment No. 96—

The Chairman: In that case the more logical course might be to group the Amendments even more closely than I have. If it were the wish of the Committee to take Amendment No. 97 with the other group and no hon. Member objected, I should have no objection, but I do not know whether a debate on that would be particularly relevant.

Mr. Davis: Some hon. Members may make more than a passing reference, and that would not be acceptable to the Committee. Yet, inevitably, there would be a connection between Amendments. If we look closely at the Amendments we see that there is a distinct possibility that some hon. Members will wish to make more than a passing reference to them. If they were to do that, would they be ruled out of order and thereby prejudice the right of other hon. Members? These are matters upon which the Committee requires your guidance, Sir Robert, at this stage, and I hope that you will indicate your view on that point when I have dealt with my second point.
There is in the Chamber one member of the Government Front Bench who is a Privy Councillor, and he has sworn an oath included in which are the following words:

You will to your uttermost bear Faith and allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States or Potentates.
It may be that you would direct any Privy Councillors here as to how that oath impinges on the matters within the subject matter of the Bill. It would seem that they are directly related to the subject matter of the Bill.
The third point is that when we have been asking for Progress to be reported the Leader of the House, when he has been present—albeit fleetingly; I know not whether he has gone off to resign pursuant to the rumour—but I see that he is back. He indicated that he was content to abide by certain normal practices in dealing with the situation. But this is not a normal situation; it is an abnormal situation. The Bill is an abnormal Bill, and the position in which the Committee has been placed tonight is extraordinary, because debate has been stifled by the very nature of the Bill.
In those circumstances is it not the bounden duty of the Leader of the House to regard this situation as being quite abnormal and to adopt abnormal procedures to resolve the impasse?

The Chairman: None of those points is for me. I cannot pre-judge what course the debate will take in the future. I see no reason to suppose that when it takes place it will be different from the normal.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Sir Robert. The hon. Member who has just spoken has purported to read out, and thus to put upon the record of the House, part of the Privy Councillor's oath, which I understand is a secret oath, which it is improper to divulge or publish. I therefore ask whether it is not part of your duty, Sir Robert, to direct that the words purporting to be quoted shall not be included in the official record.

Mr. English: There are many publications in which various versions of the Privy Council oath are printed. We can start in 1255 with the first recorded version, and mediaeval ones will be found in "Baldwin's Privy Council", with subsequent oaths in various textbooks on constitutional law and history. I am aware


that there is this myth among Privy Councillors that their oath is secret but since the oath has been there for such a long time and various copies have been provided I feel that its secrecy has been honoured more in the breach than the observance for many centuries.

5.30 a.m.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for me but is something which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should bring before Mr. Speaker at the appropriate time.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. If this is so surely the Committee ought to be suspended to allow Mr. Speaker to come to the House and be questioned on this valid point. It is obvious to any intelligent person—[Laughter]—yes, to any intelligent person—that this Committee is in a real impasse because of the deep feelings held on both sides over the nature of this Bill. Surely the intelligent thing to do is to suspend the business so that the usual channels can discuss matters.
If not, the other course is for the House to summon a Select Committee to go into the whole question of the type of legislation required to satisfy not only hon. Members but the general public, who will understand this morning that there is considerable feeling in Committee. This feeling reflects the views of the public who are not prepared to allow this type of legislation to go through. We are being denied the right to discuss important changes in the law. If anyone says we are not in an impasse, why have we been here for the last six hours discussing points of order? If that is not an impasse I do not know what is.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the situation is quite clear. What impasse there is is due to those who wish to disobey the order to the Committee, which is to get on with the Committee stage. That is how the impasse arises. Hon. Members must use their judgment as to whether they think they are right. I have told them for my part that I am bound to give them the advice—because it is the sort of advice the House demands I must give—that they are wrong. They are doing it, and there it is. I see no reason why I should regard the situation

as an impasse. It might be that upon the first Amendment I would be asked to accept the Closure. We should do the job we were given to do. We would make ourselves look a lot better in the eyes of the world.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: During the course of the evening, Sir Robert, there have been many compliments paid to you for the good nature you have shown in dealing with this matter but, candidly, you have reached a totally different level of chairmanship in seeking throughout, particularly in your last remarks, to interpret the motives of hon. Members in seeking to raise their points of order.
You have been the only Member tonight—for you are a Member of the House—who has been entirely free from the rules of order in his comments on the motives of other hon. Members—a thing which would not be accepted from any other hon. Member had he used such language in raising a point of order with you. To say that we have been disobeying the orders of the House, that we have been engaged in a mockery, is, if I may use your own language, itself a dereliction of the rôle of the Chair in those circumstances.

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that. He has not actually been here for most of the time—

Mr. Benn: I have.

The Chairman: There have been several occasions during the course of the evening's proceedings when I have said precisely the identical words—

Mr. Benn: I have heard you.

The Chairman: —and no one has taken any exception to them. It is part of my duty to say these things. [Interruption.] There is no need to get worked up about this at all. I am not attributing any nasty motives to anyone. Everybody is free to raise whatever points of order he sees fit, but I am bound to give some guidance to the Committee about what I think that it should do. That is all I seek to do. Otherwise, I might have to refuse to take any more points of order at all and precipitate a dreadful situation in the House. I am not doing that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will


not impute to me any motives which I do not have. I always endeavour to exercise the utmost impartiality, and as long as the House is good enough to have me in this position, I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order. I have heard you make these remarks during the course of the evening, Sir Robert. It was the strength and vigour of your language on the last occasion which brought me to my feet for the first time on a point of order. I must ask you to allow me to put this point to you.
During the course of this debate, you have been interpreting for the world at large what has been going on tonight. You have said many times that the reason why we have made no progress is that a section of the Committee does not wish to make progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I will come to the substantive point. You have said that some hon. Members have been disobeying the orders or rules of the House—abusing them, making a mockery of them.
Earlier today, Sir Robert, a Motion on your conduct was debated by the House and rejected. You have therefore spoken in the course of this night's proceedings with the authority that comes from a Motion on your conduct having been rejected by the House at this sitting. Therefore, the outside world, considering the proceedings throughout the night, will naturally tend to be guided by your interpretation of events—

Dame Irene Ward: Quite right.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: So they should.

Mr. Benn: But it is not the function of the Chair to interpret debates. The function of the Chair is to preserve order, to listen to points of order and to preserve general discipline in the debate. I fear that in your amusing comments on questions put to you you have been giving a running commentary upon the substance of what has happened during the night which runs counter to the intention of hon. Members in the debate.
I come to the substance as to whether what has happened tonight has been, as you have suggested, an abuse of Parliament or, as I believe, a defence of our

parliamentary system. I say this because, although hon. Members may have found what happened in the last few hours offensive, the truth is that if this Bill became law we could debate night after night with no legal prospect of making real the conclusions that we had reached. This is what the whole thing is about. If this Bill goes through, I am very much alarmed that your interpretation will give the public who will read and take note of your words a wholly false impression that we are motivated by a desire to bring Parliament into disrepute. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] Not at all. If we were to accept the position the Government have put us in, we would find that because of your selection the whole of page 1 of the Bill would go through. The first Amendment selected refers to page 2. If we accepted that the Government have the right to treat us in this way, the whole of page 1 would go straight on to the Statute Book.

The Chairman: On a question of fact, the right hon. Member is wrong. There is an Amendment to page 1.

Mr. Benn: It is a paving Amendment, or one which bears on a subsequent Amendment. This is a point of substance. So far as my hon. Friends, by a variety of points of order, have sought to draw the attention of the Chair, of the Chancellor of the Duchy and other hon. Members, including the Leader of the House, to what is happening, they have done so not to bring the House into disrepute but to preserve as long as we can the rights of Parliament to determine its own affairs.
I wish to put another point to you. I understand that if this Bill goes through the European Court will be able to adjudicate on matters of law that bear upon the question of whether we have properly acceded to the Community. Were some citizen to go to the Court and say that we had not acceded properly, your Rulings tonight would be taken into evidence by the European Court in determining whether Britain had legally acceded to the treaties. It is therefore of considerable importance that in the conduct of proceedings during this very difficult night you should not give vent to expressions of view about events that go so far as interpreting motives of hon. Members.
For these reasons I ask you once again to accept the Motion that you should leave the Chair and allow these proceedings to go into abeyance until the Government are in a position to make a further statement to the House and the House can take on board the magnitude of this Bill.

The Chairman: If I were to accept that Motion in the terms in which it has been put forward, the House of Commons would be made a laughing stock in the country. I certainly would not accept a Motion like that under any consideration. Another thing I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am expressly charged by the House of Commons to assist it to get through the business before it. That is my work. I have to do that with strict impartiality so that both sides of the question are heard. The Queen's Government and the Queen's business must be carried forward in the long run. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have to do my best. Those who are in the Chair have to see that the business is forwarded, if they can. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."] I would ask hon. Members to remain calm and try to see the situation through my eyes.
5.45 a.m.
I have asked hon. Gentlemen several times during the night to drop what they are now doing and get on to the first terms of the Bill. I have not imputed any ghastly motives to them in not doing it. I have merely said that I thought it was the right and proper thing to do. But they must be the judges of that. Over and again I have used those very words, that they must be the judges of whether what they are doing is in the best interests of all our desires. Therefore, I must leave it to them. It is wrong to suggest that I am trying to bring undue or unfair pressures to bear upon them. If I conveyed that in what I said on the last occasion, then I did not mean to go beyond what I have been saying throughout these proceedings, and this has not raised any difficulty before. I ask the Committee to accept that.

Mr. Buchan: Disgraceful.

Mr. O'Malley: Send for the Speaker.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. You have been asked, Sir Robert,

to take some action about the temperature—not the temperature outside or among hon. Members opposite, but the temperature in this Chamber. I must say that at five o'clock in the morning I do not feel a temperature of 68 degrees is suitable. That is all I wanted to say. But now that I am on my feet I should like to express the opinion to you, Sir Robert, that when Europe looks at this debate it will think the Opposition have gone mad, and I believe they have.

Mr. Brynmor John: On a point of order, Sir Robert. In giving your last Ruling you said that your intention at the end of the day is to see that the Government's business and the Queen's business go through. Do I understand you to take it as part of your function to act as agent of Government in assisting them to get through this Committee stage legislation which is highly contentious and on which many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen feel very passionately indeed? Is that how we are to interpret your Ruling. If we are not to interpret it in that way, how are we to interpret that phrase?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should interpret that Ruling on the lines that it is the duty of the Chair to the best of his ability to further the business of the House. That is how hon. Gentlemen should see it, and that is what I intended to say.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I take very strong exception to the last Ruling, and particularly to certain words you used—whether or not you intended to use them. You said that we—and presumably you were referring to the Opposition side of the House alone—had disobeyed the orders of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "'Abused' was the word".] I wrote the words down. I want to know what orders we have disobeyed. You later said that you had given us advice and that we had ignored it. I agree, but I question your right to say that we have disobeyed orders.

The Chairman: It is clear that what I mean is that when the House goes into Committee the House charges the Committee to get on with its job and not to pursue dilatory tactics indefinitely. I believe that the right hon. Member for


Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would be the first to agree that dilatory tactics have been engaged in for some considerable time. I repeat what I said before. It must be for right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches to judge whether that is right. All that I can do is point out these matters and leave it to right hon. and hon. Members to decide what they should do.

Mr. Ross: Can you tell me, Sir Robert, what orders we have disobeyed? We have exercised our rights. In this position, we should be very poor Members of Parliament if we did not.

The Chairman: As I see it, when the House orders a Committee of the House to proceed with its work it means the Committee to get on with its job. In fact, the Committee has not got on with the job. It has decided to do otherwise. That is what I mean by "an order". I do not mean that it is an express, mandatory order in so many words—"thou shalt". But when the House goes into Committee, the House naturally expects the Committee to proceed with its work. In that sense, it is an order.

Mr. Crouch: It is not strange that, after many hours discussing points of order, tempers should be running a little short. You, Sir Robert, are perhaps the lone example of the man who has "kept his cool". We all appreciate it, and I think that that appreciation is echoed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It is only in the last few minutes that avuncular views have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), which smacked somewhat of pomposity and even of hypocrisy.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has sought on a number of occasions to suggest that you should accept a Motion to report Progress. He has done so because he feels that the Committee is in a state of unrest. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has considered that and replied that he feels that the Committee wants to make progress. I cannot see that it can be said now that the Opposition have not had a very fair run for their money.
I do not argue that the majority of the points of order that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have raised have not been made with some skill so as not

to try your patience too much. But the time has come when the proposition of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the counter-proposition of my right hon. Friend should be considered seriously. I come down strongly in favour of my right hon. Friend's suggestion, because surely it is the object of both sides of the Committee to make some progress now. The only way that we can make progress is for the Amendment to be moved.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Earlier this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) referred to some correspondence which we have had in the past. I would not refer to that. I thank you for your graciousness in replying to my request that, as Chairman, you exercised your discretion in some of the Rulings which you have made.
In the exchanges which you had with my hon. Friend I seem to recall that you stated, quite correctly, that the matter on which we voted at 10 o'clock last night disposed of that matter because of the Ruling which you then made. However, I understand that the matter which we discussed last night concerned Rulings given by you, Sir Robert, regarding the selection of Amendments on the Notice Paper for what was Tuesday.
If I am right, there were at least two Amendments, which you mentioned in your correspondence with me—namely, Amendments Nos. 43 and 60—which do not fall within the purview of the Ruling which you gave on Tuesday and, by that token, do not fall within the vote which we had last night. Therefore, they remain outstanding as regards the matter of that correspondence.
Amendment No. 43 is in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) This Act shall not apply to Wales or Scotland.
Amendment No. 60 is in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) Title V of Part Four of the Treaty of Accession shall not be included as part of such Treaty without an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.
I understand that the reason given for the ruling out of order of a number of Amendments—this was mentioned earlier in these discussions—was that they subject to parliamentary approval provisions of the treaties already accepted.
I cannot follow—perhaps you may be able to help me, Sir Robert—why this House cannot say that Title V of Part Four of the Treaty of Accession—I believe that it has something to do with capital movements—shall not be included as part of such treaty without an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, because those two Amendments are out of order and they have been disposed of.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend wants to finish his point of order.

Mr. Spearing: Do I take it, Sir Robert, that you have not accepted my submission that Amendments Nos. 43 and 60 were not part of the Ruling which you gave on Tuesday? I understand that those Amendments did not appear on the list of selected Amendments which was published on Tuesday. Will you please confirm that?

The Chairman: No, they did not appear, because they were not in order.

Mr. Heffer: It grieves me to raise this point of order, Sir Robert, but it has to be done.
Earlier you gave a rather contradictory reply to something which you had said previously. There is no doubt that throughout the points of order tonight you have tended to appear as if you were being partisan. I understand the difficulties which face a chairman. I have been a chairman of just as difficult a body as this, perhaps more difficult—the Liverpool Trades Council Labour Party. I was the only chairman who ever got through an entire year without being moved out of the chair. I understood that a chairman had never to be partial and had to fall over backwards to be impartial towards his friends. I am afraid that has not happened tonight and that you did not sufficiently answer the point made by my hon. Friend as to what rules of order of this House have been disobeyed.
6.0 a.m.
I would draw the attention of the House to a previous Bill which went through Second Reading and was finally withdrawn. I refer to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. There was an agreement between the two Front Benches and, I think, the Leader of the Liberal Party but not the majority of his Members. But there was an objection to that Bill on both sides of the House, strong objection, and, although it was my Government which were trying to put it through, those of us who objected to it used every parliamentary ploy we legally could to oppose it. I never once remember the Chair at that time attacking any Member of any side of the House for using legitimate parliamentary tactics. To many on this side, and to some on that, this Bill is just as offensive—

Hon. Members: More.

Mr. Heffer: —all right—just as offensive, and as my hon. Friends have said, more offensive because of the greater damage it does. At least, if that Bill had gone through, another Parliament could have got rid of it, but it will not be so easy with this Bill because we could be tied for a long time to something without knowing how to get out of the situation.
I come back to the point that the Chairman must always be totally impartial. That means he must not be the Government's agent, nor even appear to be an agent of the Government of the day to get their legislation through.
That did not happen on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The Chair was scrupulously fair from beginning to end, and in the end the Government saw the writing on the wall. They came to understand the strength of feeling on both sides, although there was a majority for Second Reading. This Government will have to learn the same lesson on this Bill, and they might as well do it now before many hours are wasted going throughout the coming year on this legislation.
My point of order is that I hope you will give us a firm assurance that from now on there will be total impartiality.

Hon. Members: Shame.

The Chairman: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that the House knows


me well enough to know that I am not worried about my impartiality, which is 100 per cent. secure.

Hon. Members: We are.

The Chairman: Perhaps hon. Members will not feel like that all the time. Hon. Members may feel like it now, but the esteem in which they hold me will return to them. They know me well enough to know that my first love is the House of Commons and that I want to see this place function properly as a Parliament.
As long as I am in the Chair I will exercise my impartiality. It simply means that I deem it my job at times to point out certain things. I have said over and over again that it is up to hon. Members whether they heed what I say, or whether they go along the way they have chosen, which they are entitled to do. Let there be no mistake about that. I am entitled to point out from the position which I hold the dangers of hon. Members doing so. I feel confident that when the present turmoil is over hon. Members will have no fears about my impartiality, and I assure them that they need have no fears.

Mr. Cormack: I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will dissent totally from what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said. We believe that you have been placed in an extremely difficult and almost intolerable position, Sir Robert. When the public read what has gone on they will form their own conclusions. It is absolutely legitimate for hon. Members to fight a Bill Clause by Clause and line by line. If a Bill is offensive to hon. Members they should fight the Bill, and we should, therefore, be debating the Amendments here and now.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: May I, on a point of order, express my profound sympathy with you, Sir Robert? It is intolerable to be caught between an irresistible force and an irremovable object.
I make to you in a slightly different way the point which I made to your predecessor in the Chair. We feel that the Bill is an illegitimate means of achieving what many hon. Members regard as a

desirable end and it must be resisted by rather unorthodox methods. What we are trying to do is what European Parliaments did when they joined together to form the Community of Six. We are precluded from taking the same course as each of those national Parliaments because we have not the powers of amendment that they had. When the Federal Republic of Germany joined the Coal and Steel Community, it took 10 months to get the Bill through the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, and similar happenings occurred in other Parliaments as various States acceded to the treaties. Since we are denied the benefit of those European procedures, we must adapt our own procedures to achieve the same ends.
The debate has produced considerable clarification. It is a real debate, despite its having been conducted in the form of a series of points of order. It will be recognised as a real debate when the public outside get to hear of it, and it is the public outside who will have the final word on whether or not we go into the Community.

The Chairman: I do not think there is anything I can add. I have made so many similar answers that I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by repeating them.

Mr. Peter Shore: I have not so far intervened to put a point of order to you, Sir Robert. I have listened to the discussion, and I marvel at my self-restraint at having kept out of the debate until now. Perhaps I may be allowed a few measured reflections which may be of assistance to the House.
In the last eight hours the profound unwisdom of the decision taken by the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy to persist in the Bill at 10 o'clock last night has been demonstrated. This was, clearly, a grave error, and reflections will be cast upon the House of Commons as a result of the past eight hours. If you, Sir, have found yourself in unusual difficulties, there is no doubt that the stubbornness, intransigence and insensitivity of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House are the real cause.
The Government do not seem to have realised that these long hours have revealed a very large gulf in the thinking of both sides. They apparently think


that because a Ruling has wiped out 50 or more major Amendments there can be no further protest from this side. The Chair apparently takes the view that we should simply accept this and carry on with the business. We take the view that we have a duty to resist. We have a considerable responsibility not only to the people who sent us here but to the nation as a whole.
We therefore do not feel that we can just settle down to discuss these Amendments which have been selected for us. We are obviously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, in an impasse. The Government would be wrong to imagine that we are going to break out of it—it is not going to happen. As they have not come to a recognition of the facts, the only possible thing to do is to report Progress and adjourn the Committee stage until next Tuesday at a reasonable hour.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I had better call Mr. Orme to get the quotation straight.

Mr. Orme: I want to refer back to your departing blast when you left the Chair earlier, Sir Robert. I raised in a serious way then the view that I did not believe you were going out of your way to be partial but I felt that by the nature of events and by some of the strictures you made on the Opposition there was a danger of your being sucked into the politics of the Bill—not because you yourself were expressing any political views or were letting them be known or were trying to be partial to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) raised the matter again when you gave, as it were, a second blast more recently. Many of us sat under your Chairmanship during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act and have nothing but praise for the way you conducted those proceedings. There was no trouble with the Chair at all, despite the extreme trouble with the Government, when a parallel situation arose because the Government imposed a time table which excluded discussion of many Clauses in the Bill.
This Bill will have a difficult passage, but we want to see that the Chair is

fully protected. You said, Sir Robert, that it was the duty of the Chair to see that the Queen's business was pressed forward. If you take that attitude, then if the Committee or the House during the passage of the Bill decides that part of the Queen's business is to be rejected by the House, that puts you in a difficult position.
6.15 a.m.
My hon. Friends have strong feelings, but tempers have been kept reasonable throughout the night. There is bound to be some give and take on both sides in this situation. But there has been no unpleasantness. My hon. Friends do not want any unpleasantness with the Chair. I say that in the most conciliatory tone. But it is something which should be considered.
My second point is the question of the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. During the period of the Labour Government, on numerous occasions on major Bills the Opposition exercised that right. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends leading the Opposition tonight have tried to seek that right. I never knew a time when we went for eight hours with such a Motion not being accepted by the Chair. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) that the Leader of the House last night moved that exact Motion without having discussed the Bill and it was accepted by the Chair. This is an important point.
We do not know what the views of the House are, Sir Robert, but you have a duty to test the feeling of the House by accepting the Motion. When the Opposition are pressing it, Sir Robert, you ought to show your impartiality by accepting such a Motion. It has to be accepted at some time. We have now been discussing points of order—

An Hon. Member: Bogus points.

Mr. Orme: Not bogus points of order—because the Chair at no time has said that they are bogus, so we are not having that said.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Bill is illegitimate.

Mr. Orme: Whilst naturally, Sir Robert, you have wanted to proceed, no point of order has been ruled out as


bogus; nor has any hon. Member been instructed by you to resume his seat because his point of order was bogus. Therefore, that remark was untrue.
I return to the central and very important point. I have been unable to look up the precedents, but I doubt whether in the history of Parliament we have ever gone for seven and a half hours with such a Motion, which the Opposition want to move, not being accepted. Therefore, Sir Robert, may I ask when you will be prepared to accept such a Motion from my hon. Friends? The Committee is entitled to know that. Many of my hon. Friends wish to continue with genuine points of order. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is trying to catch your eye, Sir Robert.

The Chairman: I cannot give an assurance as to exactly when or whether I should accept such a Motion We shall have to see how things go. I do not feel I can accept such a Motion unless it is moved by those in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Molloy: In giving Rulings you have mentioned from time to time, Sir Robert, the dignity, status and authority of the House. Many of us believe that if we allow the Bill to go through without debating Amendments which we have put down all that you have warned about might happen. We believe we are defending the status of the House and of the British people. You talk glibly about us being here for eight hours, but some of us, believing the status, dignity and authority of Parliament to be in jeopardy, would not mind staying here for 80 days. We are not prepared to surrender to the threats from the Government or from you, Sir Robert. That is how strongly we feel about it. If you or hon. Members on the Government side feel that this is extravagant language, then I challenge you and hon. Members opposite to leave the decision with the final arbiters—not me, not you, not Mr. Speaker but the British people.
This is a grave constitutional issue for which there has been no precedent. Precedent can have been your only guide in some of the things you have said. In these circumstances I would have thought that the maximum amount of latitude should have been given to enable any aspect of the Bill to be thoroughly de-

bated, as we were promised by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench. This is an extraordinarily important issue. There has never really been anything quite like it before.
Hon. Members on this side and some hon. Members on the Government side were shocked when we discovered that certain Amendments were not going to be called. This did not honour the pledge we were given that full opportunity would be given to discuss every aspect of this great issue. Some of us feel that that pledge has been dishonoured. Many of us feel, Sir Robert, that if you had any bias tonight it should have been towards those who have been cheated. I believe the House has, generally, been on reasonably good behaviour. The only time when it seemed that the good behaviour might be impaired was when we heard some of the quite uncalled-for, biased remarks from the Chair.
This is a massive and unprecedented issue and there is very strong feeling about it. You should allow a Motion to be put whereby Progress could be reported so that the important points that have been raised tonight can be sensibly discussed through the usual channels.

The Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. McNamara: Had we been sitting under the normal suspension Motion that is moved at 10 p.m., it would have been possible for the Committee to test the feeling of hon. Members at this time to see whether we should continue to sit.
I regret that the Chairman has now left because he said earlier that the Queen's Government must be carried forward. I regarded it as a slip of the tongue in that he meant that the business of the House of Commons must be carried forward. It is the duty of the Government to get their business. It is the duty of the Opposition to examine, discuss and, if necessary, oppose. Half our problem is the way the Government have been trying to get their business, forcing the Opposition to take unprecedented action.
Although the Chairman pointed out that there were other things the Opposition could do, he did not point out what the Government could do, such as review


their proposed legislation on this subject, introduce a guillotine or allow the Patronage Secretary to move the Closure.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Member has been speaking for some time but is no nearer his point of order.

Mr. McNamara: I am asking why the Chair, having suggested a course of action which the Opposition might follow, has not suggested a course of action to the Government, such as scrapping the Bill, introducing their own Amendments, moving the Closure and so on.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is still not a point of order for the Chair.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order. I was, I think, the first, perhaps by accident, to take up with the Chairman, who I regret is not present, his use of the word "mockery" and similar colourful language. We have insisted that it is not in our interest to hinder parliamentary procedure but that we have been forced into this position by the shortcomings of the undertakings given by the Government about how discussion of the Bill will take place.
The Chairman spoke of the risk of Parliament becoming the laughing stock of the British people. He obviously did not intend to be partisan and he said he understood our plight. But highly coloured phrases like "conscience searching", "mockery" and "laughing stock" do not help matters. Had the Chairman been in the Chair I would have asked him to define what he meant and I would have reminded him that the rôle of Parliament is being lessened by the type of legislation that the Government are introducing.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude because I have been anxious to hear his point of order. He is rehashing a number of disputes that have occurred during the night but he is not raising a point of order for me to answer.

Mr. Buchan: Having been a Member of the House of Commons for about eight years, I cannot recall worse Rulings—Rulings given in more partial language

and containing more imputations—being given by any Speaker or Chairman than we have had from the Chairman of Ways and Means tonight; and I say that as one who has never before quarrelled with the Chair. This is a point of order.

The Second Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Member wishes to criticise the Chair, he knows his remedy. It has been carefully explained to him and to all other hon. Members during the last 24 hours. The hon. Member should not go on attacking the Chair in this manner.

Mr. Buchan: It seems that people may be attacked by the Chair but they are not supposed to attack back in this form; there is another form. I shall come to that.
The background to what has happened arises, first, from the nature of the Bill. We do not know to what extent it was drafted in order to make it difficult to table Amendments or make it easy to rule them out of order. Secondly, the nature of the Bill is such as to interfere directly with the powers, freedoms and liberties of the House. The third factor arises from the Rulings about certain Amendments.
The situation facing us is that the will of the majority of the people is being thwarted by the techniques of legislation and the technicalities of the Chairman's Rulings. We have spoken a lot about the freedoms, rights and privileges of Members of Parliament, but they are as nothing compared with the importance of the freedoms of the people. The moment that the House cannot, through its rules of order, allow the expression of the needs and wills of the people, we are in danger. We have been in danger for the last 24 hours because of the nature of the Bill, the Rulings from the Chair and the behaviour of the Chairman.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member, as far as my observation goes, always tries to help the Chair. I should be grateful if he would help me now. He has been talking about the will of the people, but the importance of that matter is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Buchan: I understand. The precise point of order that I am raising is how


to resolve a situation in which, because of the Rulings that have been given, the House and its needs have been put out of tune with the needs and the demands of the people. We have therefore to consider what it is open to us, within the rules of order, to achieve.
Other Rulings have been given which raise equally important points of order. The question was asked earlier: when did we accept the Treaty of Accession? We received no answer from the Chair and we received no answer from the Government, but the Chairman has already decided that the country has accepted the Accession Treaty. That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). This is a serious matter, which merits the Motion that we have been pressing for the last hour, that we—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member insists that he is discussing an important point of order. It may be important, but is it a point of order? Will he help me by showing me in what way it is a point of order?

Mr. Buchan: Indeed this is a point of order. The point of order is, to what extent is the Chairman or Mr. Speaker allowed to define for us the nature of our treaties, to make an expression of the law? This is what has happened. It has been done not so much by the Government Front Bench but by the Chair. If this is not a point of order, God knows what is. So many issues have come up that we need time to sort out the mess into which the stupidity and ineptitude of the Government have put us. We must ask the Leader of the House to find a means of ending this sitting so that a week or so can supervene and something can be saved from the wreck which the Government, along with the Chairman, have brought about.
I end by asking for guidance. Clearly I have sharply censured the Chairman; clearly a great number of my hon. Friends agree with what I have said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It may be that the correct form is to table a Motion of censure, but perhaps there is some other form. Would you guide us, Mr. Mallalieu, as to how we can give immediate expression to the feelings we have about the Rulings and comments we have received?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have explained during the course of the night that if the Chairman is to be criticised it must be done by substantive Motion. There is no remedy in Committee other than that.

Mr. O'Malley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has just been given advice by you. You have suggested that the only remedy open to those of us who are or may be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means during the proceedings last night and this morning is to table a Motion of censure. I submit that the position is not so simple.
Half an hour before the Chairman left the Chair on the last occasion, he said that he genuinely tried to be impartial. I think he did try. I do not think he was successful. Therefore we are entitled to question whether that kind of situation can occur again. It is not something which can be dealt with by a censure Motion. We are in a difficult situation and while the major responsibility rests with the Government who have tricked and are tricking the Committee over the nature of the Bill, a number of hon. Members on this side have expressed doubts, important reservations and criticisms of the Chair. How can we carry on with any confidence as a result?
I must ask you to give us the only way we can see open to us and that is to allow us to move that the Chairman be removed from the Chair. That is the only way we can deal with the problem of confidence. A censure Motion in the future does not meet this problem and if we cannot meet it by moving the Motion I have suggested, will you tell us how we can deal with this matter?

6.45 a.m.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Again and again, even in the few minutes that I have been in the Chair recently, I have said that the only remedy open to hon. Members who feel that the Chair is in some way remiss is to put down a substantive Motion. But it cannot be done on a point of order.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order. A good deal of our problem comes from the way the Bill is drafted, and particularly the Preamble. Would discussion of the


first Amendment rule out a Government Amendment, perhaps on Report, to the Preamble which could make a difference to the selection?

Dr. Gilbert: May I draw a clear distinction between the proceedings today and the proceedings on other equally controversial legislation, the Industrial Relations Bill? To be frank, the Opposition were more of a mind on that Bill than we are on this one. We did not go through this sort of performance then, when we could have done, as the Chair has pointed out. The reason that we have declined to allow the Committee to proceed tonight is that this place is run on the basis of a social contract between the majority party and the minority party.
I am trying to be helpful because I have a constructive proposal to make. We all recognise that in the last resort the rule of the majority will prevail and the Government will get their legislation through so long as they can command a majority. We are not blind to these facts. But we say that the Government have broken the social contract which exists between both sides as a method of getting the business through. That is why we have had this series of points of order. I submit that we could make progress with the Bill if the Government were to consider introducing in any way a change in the substance of the Bill by an Amendment to the Long Title, which seems to be one obstacle to our making progress.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Mallalieu, that some discussions have taken place. The Leader of the House might wish to make a statement about what he has in mind. We would be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said, there have been discussions. The proposition which I put to the Committee, which I understand has some measure of agreement, is that as the hon. Member suggested earlier that his Amendment should be moved formally and I said that we could see how we got on, I now make the firm proposition that if that Amendment, which is the first of a group, were moved and my hon. and learned Friend

the Solicitor-General replied, we would have started on the Committee stage. On that basis, after those two speeches, I would be willing to suggest that we should move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should certainly recommend my hon. Friends to accept the general proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman, but in accepting it, and not wishing to qualify acceptance in any way, I should like to underline two or three facts about it which I think the Committee should appreciate.
I understand that the Amendment that would be called must be Amendment No. 49 with its associated Amendments. That Amendment was accepted by the Chair at the beginning of our proceedings at 10 o'clock. It was one of our criticisms during the night that we had not been able to consider the relationship of that Amendment to all the others. From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I understand that we shall have short statements and then the Motion to report Progress after a statement from either side of the Committee, but when we reassemble we shall have the fullest rights to continue to debate on those Clauses and my hon. Friends will be able to intervene in that debate. That should be fully understood. My hon. Friends who have raised important points of order have not secured in response what they consider to be satisfaction.
What we shall secure if we accept this proposal is that we shall initiate the debate today but will have the fullest possible rights for the continuance of the debate on this Clause and all the other Clauses. On that basis I believe the Committee would be wise to accept the proposal. If we do not accept it, it will possibly mean that we shall come to debate these Amendments at an unspecified time during the latter part of tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. That would not provide the course which so many of us wish to secure—namely, proper time in which to be able to consider the new Amendments and the other Amendments which we have insisted on throughout this debate. I hope my hon. Friends will accept this proposal.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that this will mean that the debate will begin and that at the next sitting of the Committee the


debate will continue in the normal way. My right hon. and hon. Friends have waited a long time and they have felt that the debate on Amendments in Committee should have begun earlier. I know Opposition Members will appreciate my hon. Friends' feelings. I hope that we shall now be able to proceed.

The Second Deputy Chairman: We come to Amendment No. 49—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I am sorry to delay the House for 30 seconds, but this is the point at which I must put this matter to the Chair. I wish to ask whether, in dealing with the Bill in Committee, it is intended to take the Schedules as they come after the Clauses to which they refer, or in a group at the end.

The Second Deputy Chairman: There has been no decision as far as I know to disarrange the normal order.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Is that question prejudiced by our entering on the Committee stage, or can it be dealt with at a subsequent point and before the conclusion of proceedings on Clause 1?

The Second Deputy Chairman: All I can do is to carry out the selection which has been decided by the Chair.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'the'.
The effect of the Amendment may not by crystal clear at this time of the morning but it is to leave out the words
subject to subsection (3) below…
I understand it is the will of the Committee to take at the same time Amendment No. 99, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
I should make three preliminary points on these Amendments. The first is that in this portion of the Bill, in Part I, we are facing what clearly are the operative Clauses of the Bill, whatever construction one takes of the nuts and bolts and whether or not one considers that it is a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession in substance.
We wish in these Amendments to probe to discover whether the Clause 1 is what

it purports to be, namely a "Short title and interpretation" Clause, or, something more substantial is concealed under its comparatively innocuous title.
My second point is that the first three Clauses are part of the package with which the Committee has been presented, in circumstances of great difficulty to this side, to the Chair, and possibly to hon. Members on the Government side as well. One of the difficulties about the package is that it appears that we cannot open it. This is a matter of order. I hope that sensible arrangements will be reached about it. But obviously one of my tasks in moving this Amendment is to try to open the package a little so that we may see what it is sought to import and whether there is contraband inside.
Thirdly and finally, it is essential to try to grasp a little of the complexity of meaning with which Clause 1 is drafted. The definition of "the Community Treaties" has perhaps a simplicity which disappears rapidly when one enters the complexities of the Clause. Part of the function of the Amendments is to try to unravel that complexity and reveal its purpose. I am afraid that its purpose appears to be very sinister. However, perhaps I might elaborate on that on a later occasion.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I respond to the invitation of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) by agreeing with him that at last the Committee has now moved on to the meat and substance of our proceedings.
The Clause with which we are concerned to begin with is that dealing with the Short Title and interpretation. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he wanted to examine the package in some detail, and no doubt we shall have further opportunities to do that. He wondered whether there was any contraband contained in the package. When we examine the package, we shall find that there is nothing to declare—nothing, that is, beyond what the hon. and learned Member's own Government would have felt it necessary to declare had they been making the same journey in similiar circumstances.
Subsection (1) is the Short Title. Subsection (2) contains the definitions there set out, including those contained in the


Schedule. For the purpose of the Amendment to remove subsection (3) altogether, the important words in subsection (2) are
'the Treaties' or 'the Community Treaties'".
The definition of those words is significant for the Bill and, as the subsection says, for any other Statutes, subject to any contrary meaning appearing.
If one unravels the package a little, "the Treaties" or "the Community Treaties" can be divided between pre-accession treaties—that is to say, those described in Part I of Schedule 1: the seven categories there identified—and the Treaty of Accession, signed on 22nd January, plus the decision of the same date of the Coal and Steel Communities taken under Article 98 of the Treaty of Paris, which has the same effect and is negotiated in the same way as the Treaty of Accession. Those matters are to be taken, looking at page 2, line 5, together with
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom".
So is
any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities,
or, finally,
any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the Community Treaties".
So that apart from those listed in the Schedule, apart from the Treaty of Accession and the associated decision of the Coal and Steel Community, "Community Treaties" includes these two other categories: namely, those entered into by the Communities under the treaties or by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the Community treaties. Those are the different packages which we have there.
So that the Committee may be in no doubt, probably the most important two items in those packages, apart from those listed in the Schedule, are those treaties entered into by any of the Communities, with or without member States, and those treaties entered into by the United Kingdom ancillary to the Community treaties. Treaties entered into by the Communities, for example, under Articles 113 or 238 of the Treaty of Rome, are those treaties where the Communities would be

exercising, within the limits of the treaties, a treaty-making power in relation to the relevant matters—mainly tariff matters—on behalf of all the member States simultaneously.
It was that treaty-making power which could be exercised by the Communities which was acknowledged as long ago as 8th May, 1967, by the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, as one of the significant factors of joining the Communities. The then Prime Minister said:
Broadly speaking, it would have the effect "—
this is accession to the Communities—
of vesting in Community institutions our power of concluding treaties on tariffs and commercial policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1089.]
So the proposition contained in the first part of that end package beginning at line 5 on page 2 has always been visualised as one of the aspects of joining the Communities.
The other half is any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the other treaties. That is the package which we can examine further. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than it would wish. However, I hope that that exposition is reasonably intelligible and lucid at this time of the morning.
The significance of subsection (3), in the context of that package, which Amendment No. 49 would seek to delete, is as follows. The first four lines of subsection (3) are evidental:
If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive".
That is merely machinery not unlike that which we find in other international law provisions whereby, as a matter of evidence, the Order in Council can declare that a treaty is or is not a Community treaty.
The second part of subsection (3) is of more significance. That provides that any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January, 1972, shall not be regarded as a Community treaty unless it is so specified in such an Order in Council and that it will not be specified in such an Order


in Council unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.

Mr. Stainton: Would that be an affirmative Resolution?

The Solicitor-General: Indeed yes. That is the significance of the Resolution needing to be approved by each House of Parliament.
The second part of subsection (3) is a special provision ensuring that any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972, ancillary to the Community treaties, shall not be so specified and, therefore, shall not be regarded as a treaty having that effect until it has been the subject of an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. There is that express protection built into the Clause in relation to treaties entered into by the United Kingdom ancillary to Community treaties after the date of the signature on 22nd January, 1972.
I wish again to be clear about that. That protection—

Mr. Loughlin: Get on with it.

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Member will allow me, I am trying to deal with this. The protection exists and I do not wish the House of Commons to say that it has not had this presented to it clearly.
The protection of an affirmative Order in Council applies to post-22nd January, 1972, treaties entered into by the United Kingdom, but for treaties entered into by the Communities without concurrent entry by the United Kingdom affirmative Resolution is not required.
The effect of removing subsection (3) would be to remove the protective provisions arising from the necessity for the Order in Council. I will not go into that because there are significant variations, permutations and combinations of what could be done in relation to Orders in Council which emerge to some extent on the next group where there is a large variation which enables one to unravel the package further.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me—I dare say they will with enthusiasm—if I confine my unravelling of the package to that modest contribution and regard the Committee stage of the Bill as well and truly launched.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move.
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
It is a matter of general satisfaction on both sides that we have been able to make some progress, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will find it helpful in making future contributions to have had the initial contributions from both sides on which to base their future speeches.

Mr. Foot: Since this is the Motion I have been asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move all night, I receive it with enthusiasm.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

LOCAL AUTHORITY TENANTS (TENURE)

7.12 a.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: I am most grateful for what is apparently a somewhat belated opportunity to raise an important matter for the civil rights of 5,500,000 council house tenants and their families.
As hon. Members will be aware, council tenants enjoy virtually no security of tenure. The tenant of a private landlord does have security of tenure under the Rent Act, 1968, and can be evicted only in a limited range of circumstances and only after a county court has considered a claim for possession and heard arguments from both sides. But the council tenant is denied that protection. His landlord, the local authority can, under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, obtain a summary order for possession from a magistrates' court without giving a reason in support of the application.
I do not think it should have been necessary for me to raise this issue in the House. Council tenants were given a firm impression last summer that the Government intended to take early action to give them the same security of tenure


as private tenants. The White Paper, "Fair Deal for Housing", published last July, contained in paragraph 35, the following sentence:
With the introduction of fair rents a council tenant will be entitled to the same protection against summary eviction as any other tenant".
That firm pledge, of which much was made by Tory back-benchers, notably the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), during the subsequent debate, has not been carried out by the Government. It transpires that all that the Government propose to do is to repeal the Small Tenements Recovery Act, which they already have power to do by Order in Council under the 1968 Rent Act. I am glad that the Small Tenements Recovery Act is to be repealed, but the effect of the repeal will by no means satisfy the pledge which the Government have given.
The sole effect of repealing the Act will be that local authorities will have to go to a county court rather than to a magistrates' court to obtain possession. They will not have to give reasons in support of their application, so council tenants will still be greatly disadvantaged compared with tenants of private landlords.
I am not suggesting that local authorities in general are irresponsible landlords who make a practice of arbitrary eviction for inadequate reasons. In the vast majority of cases local authorities bend over backwards to be fair to their tenants, but alarming cases do occur with sufficient frequency to merit concern.
One recent case concerning the Greater London Council has been brought directly to my attention. It involves a constituent of the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). I have passed the details on to him, and he is happy for me to mention them in the House. I can do no better than to retell the story in the words of Mrs. Kay McNicholas, the Chairman of the Warwick Estates Tenants' Association, who reported it in the newsletter published by the Association. She wrote:
On Sunday, 25th January, 1970 your Chairman had just got home from a day long conference on housing and was rushing around to prepare a meal for her patient husband when an elderly man presented himself at her door, in tears and hardly able to tell her his troubles. … After much questioning we found out that the man, Mr.

Conway, was living on the twelfth floor at Wilmcote House. He was in arrears of rent—not surprising when we found his wages were barely £10 a week and his rent £5 12s. 6d.—and that he was to be evicted the following day. Mr. Conway said he had been trying to find the 'Tenants' Association lady' for the past fortnight and that only today had someone scribbled Kay's name and address on a piece of paper and directed him to her door.
This poor man, orphaned at the age of seven and shoved into an orphanage, was unable to read or write fluently. No one had explained to him what was involved when a court order was made out against him. This was in September, 1969. He struggled and nearly cleared his arrears but a bout of ill health—he did not claim social security benefit; he should have been advised to do so—caused him to fall into arrears again. The G.L.C. decided to executive the eviction order they had obtained in September, in January.…
We visited the area housing office and saw there the housing officer who was pleasant and co-operative but unable to stay the execution of the eviction because the matter was already in the hands of the court bailiffs. A visit to the flat in Wilmcote House showed us that the accommodation was too big for a single man and that Mr. Conway was a scrupulously clean hard-working man. Kay extricated a promise via the area housing officer that Mr. Conway would be re-housed by the G.L.C. in smaller and cheaper accommodation.
Despite this promise, the eviction went ahead, and it was only through the help of the Tenants' Association that Mr. Conway was able to find a roof over his head. The Association managed to get him into a Church Army hostel for one night and then for a week in the Y.M.C.A. He had then to move to other temporary accommodation before he was eventually re-housed by the G.L.C.
This distressing case did not receive any Press publicity at the time, but it was referred to in yesterday's Guardian in an article foreshadowing this debate.
The next case I want to mention caused widespread concern when it was reported in the Sunday Times of 12th December last. The allegation made by the Sunday Times was that a 40-year old unemployed man had been evicted from a council house in Stoke-on-Trent, where he had lived all his life, partly on the ground that he was a homosexual. I have no personal knowledge of this case, although I have checked with the Stoke-on-Trent Council, which maintains that the question of whether or not the man was a homosexual was not relevant to the eviction,


which was because of the tenant's failure to keep the house clean and the garden in good order. What is not at issue is that the eviction was an arbitrary one and that the tenant had no opportunity to argue in a court of law against the reasons given for his eviction.
The third case was reported in The Guardian on 23rd March last year. It involved a tenant at Haslingden, in Lancashire. The report said in part:
Haslingden Borough Council in Lancashire obtained the eviction order from Rossendale magistrates yesterday against Mr. Edward Lowe, of Dale Street, Haslingden. Mr. Lowe, who has two sons aged 13 and 11 and a married son, is a former coal delivery man and has been unemployed for three weeks.
He was first given notice of eviction in December, after the council had received a number of complaints from neighbours about nuisance. At that time the house was in poor repair, and Mr. Lowe had been allowing his son and daughter-in-law to live there without the council's permission.
Since then, however, the son and his wife have found a home for themselves, and Mr. Lowe has redecorated the house at his own expense. On March 15, Mrs. Mary Cunliffe, Haslingden's housing officer, reported to the Conservative-controlled housing committee that the house was 'remarkably improved' and that she was 'quite satisfied with its state'. The committee was also told that the weekly rent of £2·91 had been paid up to date.
The family was evicted on 19th April last year and put into a transit house run by the Lancashire County Council, where it has been ever since.
The last case I want to mention in detail concerns a tenant against whom the local council had no complaint whatever—Captain H. Julian Jones, of Aberystwyth—who wrote to me last April and whose eviction was later commented on in the British Legion Journal as follows:
In the case of Captain H. Julian Jones and his eviction from a decontrolled council house by the Aberystwyth Rural Council after the statutory four weeks notice, the reason says Captain Jones, ostensibly, is that his home of 20 years is too big for him and should be used by a large family. But when he requested that his son, his son's wife and their twenty month old baby be permitted to live there with him, this was refused. He was also not given the opportunity to purchase the property, and there was no question of providing him with alternative accommodation.
Hon. Members may think that on the facts as I have reported them none of these tenants should have been evicted, but that is not the case I want to argue. It may be that there were other factors involved of which I am not aware and

that in some at least of these cases the local authorities had good grounds for seeking to evict. The point I am making is that whatever the grounds, good or bad, it was not necessary for the local authority concerned to argue them in a court of law, and in each case the tenant was subject to arbitrary eviction.
There are other cases known to me where evictions were not carried out but where the local authorities obtained possession orders for apparently trivial reasons. The Under-Secretary of State will be aware of cases at Hull. Whitby and Norton Rural District, Yorkshire, about all of which details were sent to the Secretary of State by Mr. Roy Haddon, of the Yorkshire Child Poverty Action Group. Mr. Haddon has written more recently to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) giving details of these cases, stating:
Two threats of eviction in general for tenants who fail to keep their gardens tidy have come to my attention—York Corporation and Haltemprice U.D.C. That such threats can be made in the way they are is a reflection of the complete lack of security enjoyed by Council tenants.
Then there was the deplorable affair of Reading County Borough, which was described to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on 11th May last year when he, said:
The most recent example in my experience is that of a local authority which passed a resolution saying that, if a tenant or any member of his family was convicted of vandalism, the family would be evicted. In this case the local authority was not only proposing to punish the culprit twice for the same offence. It was also seeking to punish all the other innocent members of his family by making them homeless. While it is only fair to add that the council concerned is having second thoughts, the fact is that not only did it pass such a resolution but it would have been able to enforce it in the courts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 214.]
I think I have said enough to persuade hon. Members, or at least the Under-Secretary, whose courteous attention I am grateful to have, knowing as I do the very heavy demands made upon him currently in Committee, where he and I have been incarcerated for a vast amount of time in the last few weeks, and where he is under a very heavy burden of answering for the highly reactionary Housing Finance Bill for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have


said enough to persuade the Under-Secretary that this is not a trivial matter. The number of evictions may not be large but the evictions involve a wide range of authorities, from the G.L.C. to powerful county boroughs like Stoke and Hull and smaller authorities like Norton and Whitby.
This is not a political matter. Some of the authorities are Labour controlled and some are Conservative controlled. It is urgent to give security of tenure to the tenants of those authorities and to the much larger number of tenants who may be in no immediate danger of summary eviction but cannot really feel secure unless the threat, however distant in reality it may be, is withdrawn.
What should the Government do to give them this security and fulfil their pledge of last July? Ideally, the Government should introduce a Bill to give council tenants security of tenure. They are morally bound to do so. But I am in some difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that I understand that it would not be in order to use an Adjournment debate to demand legislation. Therefore, while I hope the Government will introduce a Bill, or at least give full backing to any hon. Member who seeks to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon did last summer, I shall content myself with asking the Government to give much firmer guidance to local authorities as to the grounds on which they should evict tenants and the procedures they should apply.
The best definition of the circumstances in which a local authority might be justified in applying for a possession order is contained in the policy statement recently issued by the Association of London Housing Estates. The Under-Secretary has read this statement, but I shall read part of it for the sake of getting it on the record. The association argues that a tenant should be liable to eviction only for one of the following causes:
(a) Persistent and wilful non-payment of lawful rent. It should be a defence against this that the landlord has failed to carry out his obligations.
(b) Failure to maintain the premises in a respectable manner, or to take reasonable precautions to protect them from wilful damage.

(c) Allowing the premises to be used in an improper manner, for example, for carrying out a business, or for immoral purposes.
(d) Failure (after due warning) to observe reasonable conditions of tenancy.
I conclude by asking the Under-Secretary whether he will cause a circular to be sent to local authorities setting out these points and urging that local authorities should seek an order for eviction only after a tenant has been given full opportunity of objecting and of pleading mitigating circumstances, and only after a comprehensive report has been submitted to a meeting of the full council.
I hope that the Under-Secretary can agree to this. I repeat that only legislation can fully meet the point and redeem the pledge given in the White Paper.

7.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) on drawing the attention of the House to these very important matters. I agree with him that they are certainly not trivial. I congratulate him also on raising them even at this late hour of the night, when he and I are looking forward with avid enthusiasm to resuming our labours on the Housing Finance Bill in three hours' time, when no doubt we shall have many happy hours together discussing important matters in relation to the future welfare of tenants.
The hon. Member expressed his concern with sympathy and understanding. The House has learnt to appreciate his great interest in housing, particularly his interest and concern about the relationships between the 5,500,000 tenants and their local authorities. On a number of occasions he has sought to raise matters of this kind in the House and to introduce Private Member's Bills which in his view would have helped tenants.
I can well understand why the hon. Member has raised the subject and I know of some though not all of the detailed cases he used as illustrations. As the law stands under Section 111 of the Housing Act, 1957, the general management and control of local authority houses are vested in the authorities. They may recover possession of their houses by means of this power. Lettings by local authorities do not therefore carry


security of tenure under the Rent Acts. I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member that a tenant is entitled to as good treatment at the hands of a public authority as at the hands of a private landlord and his argument that if the security of tenure provisions of the Rent Acts represent the minimum rights of private tenants they should apply equally to council tenants.
But local authorities are in a wholly different position from private landlords. They are under a statutory obligation to consider the general housing needs of their districts with regard to the provision of housing accommodation and in consequence they must meet a wide variety of requirements and also have reasonable latitude in carrying out their functions of management. The hon. Member has mentioned authorities of widely differing sizes from the Greater London Council down to small rural district councils. The House will agree, though, that the vast majority of authorities, whether they own 200,000 houses like the G.L.C. or only a few hundred houses like some of the smaller authorities, act on the whole with very great care and reasonableness.
It is exceptionally rare that an authority may reluctantly conclude that eviction is the only way to maintain the best management of its housing responsibilities. If the hon. Member wishes to send me details of any specific cases I will be glad to study them, but in general I do not believe that evidence exists that it is necessary to embark upon a change in the law. It would be wholly wrong for a council to embark upon a policy of evictions save in the most exceptional circumstances. Local authorities are democratically-elected bodies, answerable to the electorate for the way in which they discharge their duties. Unlike the private landlord they would need for example to take into account, for example the possibility that an evicted family would have to be housed in temporary accommodation at public expense before instituting proceedings for eviction.
The hon. Member mentioned the G.L.C. I do not have the latest statistics but I understand that recent figures indicate a rate of evictions of only 0·1 per cent. over the entire housing stock of the G.L.C. I believe that although

council tenants do not enjoy statutory security of tenure, in practice they have security of tenure virtually on a par with private tenants. I have no evidence that local authorities are abusing their powers and evicting their tenants unreasonably. Most applications for evictions arise from non-payment of rents and this is also one of the grounds on which the private landlord can seek possession. Under the Rent Act, 1957, notice to quit is not valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before it is to take effect.
The Housing Finance Bill, now in Standing Committee, will make very important changes to the status of many council tenants. I will not go into the merits but for the first time many tenants need not fear eviction because they cannot afford to pay the rent. In future there will be a national rent rebate scheme covering tenants under each local authority. At the moment something like 40 per cent. of local authorities have no rebate scheme of any kind and many of the remaining local authorities operate wholly inadequate schemes.
My right hon. Friend said on Second Reading of the Bill that the availability of a rent rebate scheme in both the private and public sectors substantially increased the security of tenure because one basis of insecurity of tenure in the past has been inability to meet the rent concerned. In addition the Attachment of Earnings Act now makes provision for the attachment of earnings as a means of enforcing the payment of judgment debts and other monetary obligations.
The powers now available should provide housing authorities with a satisfactory means of recovering rent arrears in appropriate cases and their use will offer a more satisfactory answer to the problem of rent arrears than eviction. In association with this, a simple and fair means of preventing arrears accumulating is now available through the new procedures of rent actions in the county court as a result of county court rules that came into operation yesterday. It is a quick procedure for the recovery of rent from a tenant who is still in occupation.
The Government have been concerned for a long time about the existence of an archaic and arbitrary power open to local authorities under the Small Tenements


Recovery Act, 1838. A local authority wishing to seek possession of one of its houses has hitherto been able to have recourse to a summary procedure not available to private landlords by applying to a magistrates' court for an order under that Act. It is not appropriate that that situation should continue once fair rents have been introduced and the new structure of housing finance is in operation.
The hon. Gentleman gave a rather partial selection of quotations from the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing". I add a quotation from paragraph 35, to which he referred:
With the introduction of fair rents a tenant will be entitled to the same protection against summary"—
I emphasise that word—
eviction as any other tenant. The Government therefore proposes to terminate the application of the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838 which enables local authorities to obtain possession under a summary procedure not available to other landlords. In future a local authority will be able to evict a tenant only by an order from the county court".
That paragraph set out in full the Government's intentions. There has been no intention to mislead anyone as to our intentions. I do not think anyone has been misled. Those who read the paragraph in totality can see that that is what it says, and that is what we propose.

Mr. Leonard: In the debate on the White Paper the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) both put the same interpretation on the paragraph as I did this morning, and it has been widely accepted by tenants throughout the country. The Minister for Housing and Construction was on the Government Front Bench throughout the debate and when he replied he did not take the opportunity to contradict that construction. The hon. Member for Uxbridge had waxed eloquent about the matter. Subsequently, on Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill on 15th November, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) again claimed that the Government were proposing to give council tenants exactly the same security of tenure as private tenants. Again, the right hon. Gentleman sat through the debate and did not take the opportunity to

contradict. In the circumstances, I and the tenants are justified in thinking that this pledge had been made.

Mr. Channon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks in good faith. If there has been any misunderstanding, I hope what I have said this morning will clear it up. If the hon. Gentleman reads again that paragraph of the White Paper he will see that it is exactly as I have said. There should never have been any misunderstanding.
The Government propose to repeal the 1838 Act and the Department is now engaged in the necessary preliminaries before the order can be made. It will be made shortly. When the Act is repealed a local authority will be able to evict a tenant only by means of an order from the county court. I do not wish to exaggerate the practical effects of this small reform but it will remove this present somewhat arbitrary power.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a circular should go to local authorities about the use of their powers of eviction. I will consider what he said and consult the other interests concerned.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention harrassment, which is relevant to this issue. The general protection against harassment in the Rent Acts already applies to council tenants. Additional protection needs to be given to private tenants in unfurnished accommodation for reasons which do not apply to the tenants of local authorities. A private landlord must be required to satisfy a county court, in the wholly different situation of private dwellings, that he has one of the statutory grounds for possession and that it would be reasonable to grant him possession of the dwelling. As the situation in the private and public sectors is different, I do not think it is right to initiate a change in the law.
The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter. It is extremely important and I hope that the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate will be read by local authorities and that notice will be taken of the comments made. I believe that, especially in the stress areas, it would not be in the best interests of local authorities to evict families except in the most obdurate and exceptional circumstances. I have no evidence that authorities are doing it—certainly not in


London—except as an ultimate resort. It would be wholly wrong to embark upon such a policy except in the final and most exceptional circumstances.
I shall consider very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has done a service to the House and to coun-

cil tenants by raising the matter and by his other representations on tenants' behalf, not only tonight but in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock a.m.